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

[Knight Rise]

btw is that Arkham City pic with Batman and Robin a manip or real?

 

[KRIM]

Long story short:

Bruce Wayne ala Nolanverse taking anyone in to do this work with him is wrong. After seeing him be shot, mauled, hit by a car, stabbed, bludgeoned, fall off a building, set on fire, drugged, stomped, ect, it seems unlikely that Bruce would then say:

"I'll let you in on the danger"

It's totally counterintuitive to his character and what his struggle is in these films

Can you pinpoint exactly where Nolan's Bruce is so unique from every other Bruce who has taken Dick in? All the stuff you've mentioned is present in most Batman incarnations.

I've seen this argument pop up every year or so and none of it actually references a source. "Bruce would never take in Dick because..." doesn't exist in any of the major interpretation of Batman. He's been roughed up, he knows of the dangers, and he started off as a loner -- yet he always trains Dick.

It seems to be an easy claim to make at present because people know Nolan won't ever adapt him. Doesn't change the fact that Nolan's Bruce Wayne is not in any way a vast deviation from the many pre-Robin Bruce Wayne's out there in the lore. Generally speaking, he thinks and acts just the same.

 

[Ponyboy]

As cool as that Robin manip is... i just don't think Robin fits in with Nolan's story. Robin never fit in with Tim Burton's version either. I think for these films, the character just does not work at all.

Perhaps if (I know some of you will groan) they took the All-Star Batman approach to it. Really show the horrific death of the parents... and have Bruce reluctantly look after Dick (or leave Alfred to do so)... Maybe not necessarily have Bruce treat Grayson the way he does in ASB... but dealing with the harsh realities of the loss of his parents.

Or maybe have Dick "adopted" by Bruce, but he's sent away to a boarding school. Dick misbehaves and beats the crap outta some fellow student, ie. constantly in trouble. So then Bruce takes him back and gives him and arse whipping... then tells Dick he can teach him to channel this anger. And then Dick can come back in a later film as a young adult. You have to eaaaaaase into Robin. You can't do it the Batman Forever way.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Can you pinpoint exactly where Nolan's Bruce is so unique from every other Bruce who has taken Dick in? All the stuff you've mentioned is present in most Batman incarnations.

I've seen this argument pop up every year or so and none of it actually references a source. "Bruce would never take in Dick because..." doesn't exist in any of the major interpretation of Batman. He's been roughed up, he knows of the dangers, and he started off as a loner -- yet he always trains Dick.

It seems to be an easy claim to make at present because people know Nolan won't ever adapt him. Doesn't change the fact that Nolan's Bruce Wayne is not in any way a vast deviation from the many pre-Robin Bruce Wayne's out there in the lore. Generally speaking, he thinks and acts just the same.

The book Batman and Philosophy (a great book for Batman fans) made the argument that Batman allows Richard Grayson to fight alongside him as Robin to build character. Don't know if it helps.

Robin is a troubling character. Do him wrong, and the seriousness goes out the window, or even worse, Batman's likability does.

 

[Ponyboy]

Robin is a troubling character. Do him wrong, and the seriousness goes out the window, or even worse, Batman's likability does.

Exactly. Like I said in my post above... I think you have to "raise" him in the films. Have him appear in one film sparsely and then make him Robin in a later film.

 

[The_Raganork]

Can you pinpoint exactly where Nolan's Bruce is so unique from every other Bruce who has taken Dick in? All the stuff you've mentioned is present in most Batman incarnations.

I've seen this argument pop up every year or so and none of it actually references a source. "Bruce would never take in Dick because..." doesn't exist in any of the major interpretation of Batman. He's been roughed up, he knows of the dangers, and he started off as a loner -- yet he always trains Dick.

It seems to be an easy claim to make at present because people know Nolan won't ever adapt him. Doesn't change the fact that Nolan's Bruce Wayne is not in any way a vast deviation from the many pre-Robin Bruce Wayne's out there in the lore. Generally speaking, he thinks and acts just the same.

The characterization of Bruce is Nolanverse is remorseful over Batman. Several times in the two films we see he's questions whether or not Batman is a thing he should continue on.

"Did I bring this on her Alfred?"

"You did this, you hear me? you brought this craziness on us!"

It doesn't follow to reason that if nolan kept going in the direction he has with his Batman/Bruce that'd he suddenly be more willing to put someone else in danger.

If it happens in other incarnations fine but, if they're portraying him as a loner or someone who wouldn't want someone else to assume the risk and then he turns around and accepts Robin; then they've written a character change.

Nolan doesn't seem to be writing that character change in Bruce; he's still grasping with Being Batman, how can he find the time to train someone to fight along side of him; he's barely winning these fights himself.

Bruce in these films was given a choice and he took it and when be became Batman he sought to protect people; allowing someone else to do this job put them in danger and thusly is against what he has decided to become.

 

[Knight Rise]

people act like Robin is necessary for Batman. they feel taking him out is like taking Slimer out of Ghostbusters when in fact, it wouldnt matter. you dont need Robin because its a Batman film. its called "BATMAN" for a reason: BATMAN.

 

[Ponyboy]

they feel taking him out is like taking Slimer out of Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters is better without Slimer. The only time I liked Slimer was the 1st film... as just a random ghost that got busted.

 

[Godzilla2014]

As cool as that Robin manip is... i just don't think Robin fits in with Nolan's story. Robin never fit in with Tim Burton's version either. I think for these films, the character just does not work at all.

Perhaps if (I know some of you will groan) they took the All-Star Batman approach to it. Really show the horrific death of the parents... and have Bruce reluctantly look after Dick (or leave Alfred to do so)... Maybe not necessarily have Bruce treat Grayson the way he does in ASB... but dealing with the harsh realities of the loss of his parents.

Or maybe have Dick "adopted" by Bruce, but he's sent away to a boarding school. Dick misbehaves and beats the crap outta some fellow student, ie. constantly in trouble. So then Bruce takes him back and gives him and arse whipping... then tells Dick he can teach him to channel this anger. And then Dick can come back in a later film as a young adult. You have to eaaaaaase into Robin. You can't do it the Batman Forever way.

I kind of agree, except All-Star Batman and Robin was a ****** way to do it (Batman should be reluctant to allow Dick to be Robin, not draft him into it). Everything else, I agree with.
For Nolan's version of Batman, I think you would have better luck with an adult crime-fighting partner like Jean Paul Valley/Azrael. With Azrael, you avoid many of the problems that Robin creates with being so young.

 

[Knight Rise]

Ghostbusters is better without Slimer.

And im sure some people feel the same way about Robin

 

[Godzilla2014]

Exactly. Like I said in my post above... I think you have to "raise" him in the films. Have him appear in one film sparsely and then make him Robin in a later film.

Thank you!

The characterization of Bruce is Nolanverse is remorseful over Batman. Several times in the two films we see he's questions whether or not Batman is a thing he should continue on.

"Did I bring this on her Alfred?"

"You did this, you hear me? you brought this craziness on us!"

It doesn't follow to reason that if nolan kept going in the direction he has with his Batman/Bruce that'd he suddenly be more willing to put someone else in danger.

If it happens in other incarnations fine but, if they're portraying him as a loner or someone who wouldn't want someone else to assume the risk and then he turns around and accepts Robin; then they've written a character change.

Nolan doesn't seem to be writing that character change in Bruce; he's still grasping with Being Batman, how can he find the time to train someone to fight along side of him; he's barely winning these fights himself.

Bruce in these films was given a choice and he took it and when be became Batman he sought to protect people; allowing someone else to do this job put them in danger and thusly is against what he has decided to become.

Exactly. Nolan's Batman is the first of his kind, the first superhero in his universe. He has yet to figure it out for himself, so he doesn't have much to teach an apprentice.
Also, any incarnation of Batman that would not wish his lifestyle on anyone, has no business having a Robin.

 

[KRIM]

The characterization of Bruce is Nolanverse is remorseful over Batman. Several times in the two films we see he's questions whether or not Batman is a thing he should continue on.

"Did I bring this on her Alfred?"

"You did this, you hear me? you brought this craziness on us!"

It doesn't follow to reason that if nolan kept going in the direction he has with his Batman/Bruce that'd he suddenly be more willing to put someone else in danger.

Doubting his vigilante identity is not new to the character.

If it happens in other incarnations fine but, if they're portraying him as a loner or someone who wouldn't want someone else to assume the risk and then he turns around and accepts Robin; then they've written a character change.

Yes. It's called character evolution and progression. Things change, especially with time. Me at 20 will be of a different breed compared to me at 50. This is true of most people, and over seventy decades over material has shown that Bruce is no different.

Nolan doesn't seem to be writing that character change in Bruce; he's still grasping with Being Batman, how can he find the time to train someone to fight along side of him; he's barely winning these fights himself.

Bruce in these films was given a choice and he took it and when be became Batman he sought to protect people; allowing someone else to do this job put them in danger and thusly is against what he has decided to become.

Bruce never planned on adopting a sidekick. It wasn't even in his line of sight. The change within doesn't come to fruition before he meets Dick, it happens as he gets to know him and relates to his pain. You can't prepare for every obstacle in life. It has to hit you straight on and you deal with it then. To bring it into familiar terms, there are many people who become parents literally overnight. From personal experience, I have two friends who are now beloved parents, but not of their choosing. It's important to note that in my time with them as youths, these two would be far and beyond the most unlikely candidates to raise a child. The very thought of it was disturbing, but more amusing than anything. And yet, the presence of responsibility and love for their seed has completely altered their personalities. Needless to say they're a far cry from the outgoing and irresponsible couple I once knew. It's something that I would have never imagined could have happened.

I would wager the sudden onset of an orphan borne out of a violent crime, has a similar effect on Bruce. It's not hard to fathom witnessing another youth go through the same exact tragedy, would severely alter how one perceives anguish and vengeance. For once, he can objectively look at how emotions drive one to perform actions that are illogical. I would argue this is even more poignant for Nolan's Bruce, as he has displayed far less control in handling his parents' death. The guy was ready to murder someone in a public place. What goes through the head of someone like that? They are willing to throw their life away, in order to take one. At that point your entire sense of being only exists for destruction. Powerful stuff there.

Now what happens when you've got a mature Bruce seeing this in another youth? Someone else had to beat him to the murder to force Bruce into reevaluating his life. What would it take to stop Dick? It took someone who experienced great personal loss and was driven by a singular motive, to help Bruce find his true calling. Who would Dick have to guide him? In spite of his dangerous life, Bruce could count on Alfred to be by his side, without necessarily supporting the idea fully. If his own caregiver couldn't talk him out of it, what would prevent a determined teen from going off on his own crusade?

These are all questions naturally to be asked when you've put a new factor into the equation. As you trace the roots of Bruce's personality all the way to his role as guardian and partner, it's not unreasonable to see how and why Bruce chose to take Dick under his wing. There are a myriad of possibilities that could occur. He could have outright refused. He could have adopted Dick but never train him. He could have guided Dick's life into adulthood from behind-the-scenes. All types of scenarios. It doesn't matter. If you can form a cohesive character arc that would feasibly lead to Batman and Robin becoming an entity -- you've got all you need to support the idea.

That's my biggest issue with the Robin detractors. They don't want to even consider it as a possibility. If a coin is flipped and they correctly call the winning side, that result is their only truth. Nothing else exists. There is no alternative. That mentality is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Doubting his vigilante identity is not new to the character.

It isn't, but when he would not wish his vigilante identity on anyone else, then it stands to reason that it would be immoral to allow a minor to enter into that lifestyle. Not saying that is the end of the argument, but there's some valid reasoning.

Yes. It's called character evolution and progression. Things change, especially with time. Me at 20 will be of a different breed compared to me at 50. This is true of most people, and over seventy decades over material has shown that Bruce is no different.

I do agree that that could work.

Bruce never planned on adopting a sidekick. It wasn't even in his line of sight. The change within doesn't come to fruition before he meets Dick, it happens as he gets to know him and relates to his pain. You can't prepare for every obstacle in life. It has to hit you straight on and you deal with it then. To bring it into familiar terms, there are many people who become parents literally overnight. From personal experience, I have two friends who are now beloved parents, but not of their choosing. It's important to note that in my time with them as youths, these two would be far and beyond the most unlikely candidates to raise a child. The very thought of it was disturbing, but more amusing than anything. And yet, the presence of responsibility and love for their seed has completely altered their personalities. Needless to say they're a far cry from the outgoing and irresponsible couple I once knew. It's something that I would have never imagined could have happened.

I think that he should have an arc from resistance to the idea of a sidekick to reluctantly allowing him to. Ultimately, though, he should act as a parent and guardian.

I would wager the sudden onset of an orphan borne out of a violent crime, has a similar effect on Bruce. It's not hard to fathom witnessing another youth go through the same exact tragedy, would severely alter how one perceives anguish and vengeance. For once, he can objectively look at how emotions drive one to perform actions that are illogical. I would argue this is even more poignant for Nolan's Bruce, as he has displayed far less control in handling his parents' death. The guy was ready to murder someone in a public place. What goes through the head of someone like that? They are willing to throw their life away, in order to take one. At that point your entire sense of being only exists for destruction. Powerful stuff there.

Now what happens when you've got a mature Bruce seeing this in another youth? Someone else had to beat him to the murder to force Bruce into reevaluating his life. What would it take to stop Dick? It took someone who experienced great personal loss and was driven by a singular motive, to help Bruce find his true calling. Who would Dick have to guide him? In spite of his dangerous life, Bruce could count on Alfred to be by his side, without necessarily supporting the idea fully. If his own caregiver couldn't talk him out of it, what would prevent a determined teen from going off on his own crusade?

That might be interesting.

These are all questions naturally to be asked when you've put a new factor into the equation. As you trace the roots of Bruce's personality all the way to his role as guardian and partner, it's not unreasonable to see how and why Bruce chose to take Dick under his wing. There are a myriad of possibilities that could occur. He could have outright refused. He could have adopted Dick but never train him. He could have guided Dick's life into adulthood from behind-the-scenes. All types of scenarios. It doesn't matter. If you can form a cohesive character arc that would feasibly lead to Batman and Robin becoming an entity -- you've got all you need to support the idea.

Good point.

That's my biggest issue with the Robin detractors. They don't want to even consider it as a possibility. If a coin is flipped and they correctly call the winning side, that result is their only truth. Nothing else exists. There is no alternative. That mentality is fundamentally flawed.

I disagree. I believe that while Robin can be done well, it may be more trouble than it's worth. He's hard to do well in a serious film, and, as I stated earlier, if he is done wrong, the film's seriousness (such as in BF) or, even worse, Batman's likability as the protagonist (such as in ASBAR), go out the window.

 

[The_Raganork]

Doubting his vigilante identity is not new to the character.

So what?

Doesn't have to be new, that's what's happening here in this story RIGHT now, it's not passed thing, its a current thing.

Yes. It's called character evolution and progression. Things change, especially with time. Me at 20 will be of a different breed compared to me at 50. This is true of most people, and over seventy decades over material has shown that Bruce is no different.

So What?

Bruce has not aged 30 years, he's still in his beginnings of being Batman; if you're to suggest to me that in these films that Nolan is making, that from TDK to TDKR suddenly the idea of a young sidekick seems plausible to Bruce/Batman, you're wrong. He's got other stuff to worry about, like dealing with the idea that everyone thinks he's murdered a few people.

To bring in another vigilante while dealing with that would ruin that person's life. Not exactly the virtuous thing to do in any situation.

Robin would not Help Batman in Nolanverse as of now, he's be a big liability; Bruce simply cannot worry about ANOTHER person being killed for his choices, especially one that grants, permits, condones and trains someone to be in this lifestyle.

It doesn't make sense Krim, and nothing you've said thus far even attempts to address this issue. So if you respond, the best way to take down my argument it to tackle why Batman/Bruce would put someone else life in danger at this moment in Nolanverse.

Screw the comics, Screw this 70 years of Bat progression crap. We were never discussing that and how Robin has worked in those incarnations we're talking abut Nolanverse and TDKR because that's all that exist.

Bruce never planned on adopting a sidekick. It wasn't even in his line of sight. The change within doesn't come to fruition before he meets Dick, it happens as he gets to know him and relates to his pain.

Nolanverse Bruce's pain and a possible nolanverse Dick's pain would be similar but, to keep Dick from going through MORE pain, the pain Bruce has endured since taking up Batman, Bruce would be obligated to insist Dick find something else to do.

You can't prepare for every obstacle in life. It has to hit you straight on and you deal with it then. To bring it into familiar terms, there are many people who become parents literally overnight. From personal experience, I have two friends who are now beloved parents, but not of their choosing. It's important to note that in my time with them as youths, these two would be far and beyond the most unlikely candidates to raise a child. The very thought of it was disturbing, but more amusing than anything. And yet, the presence of responsibility and love for their seed has completely altered their personalities. Needless to say they're a far cry from the outgoing and irresponsible couple I once knew. It's something that I would have never imagined could have happened.

ok....

I would wager the sudden onset of an orphan borne out of a violent crime, has a similar effect on Bruce. It's not hard to fathom witnessing another youth go through the same exact tragedy, would severely alter how one perceives anguish and vengeance. For once, he can objectively look at how emotions drive one to perform actions that are illogical. I would argue this is even more poignant for Nolan's Bruce, as he has displayed far less control in handling his parents' death. The guy was ready to murder someone in a public place. What goes through the head of someone like that? They are willing to throw their life away, in order to take one. At that point your entire sense of being only exists for destruction. Powerful stuff there.

Bruce wanted to Murder Chill to avenge his parents. That failed

So he left it all behind. That failed.

so he joined the LoS to fight injustice and in turn has to suffer a life of anguish and turmoil to do the right thing.

This doesn't answer the problem of his parents. TDK abandoned his parents Bruce works at Waynecorp to serve Batman, he's forgotten who his father was.

Batman chose to save Rachel Dawes instead of Harvey Dent and in turn created a disaster.

As of the end of TDK Batman shouldn't be teaching anyone anything because he is legitimately messed up.

Now what happens when you've got a mature Bruce seeing this in another youth? Someone else had to beat him to the murder to force Bruce into reevaluating his life. What would it take to stop Dick? It took someone who experienced great personal loss and was driven by a singular motive, to help Bruce find his true calling. Who would Dick have to guide him? In spite of his dangerous life, Bruce could count on Alfred to be by his side, without necessarily supporting the idea fully. If his own caregiver couldn't talk him out of it, what would prevent a determined teen from going off on his own crusade?

I don't know what'll stop him but, saying "well he's going to do it anyway" is not a good argument.

Plenty of people lose their families terribly. Batman can't right a pass for all of them to become Batmen. That creates Chaos.

Don't think the law of justice is serving you? Take it into your own hands! you're an upset teen? Full of angst? Fight back and become a vigilante!

no.

Batman is the wrong thing to do but, he was necessary to spark change in Gotham.

The hero Gotham deserves but, doesn't need.

Change means undoing EVERYTHING which in turn means eventually having a Gotham without Batman. We can't even TRY to reach this ideal (however impossible it may be doesn't matter) if we're condoning sidekicks cause they have a sob story

These are all questions naturally to be asked when you've put a new factor into the equation. As you trace the roots of Bruce's personality all the way to his role as guardian and partner,

Not in these films.

it's not unreasonable to see how and why Bruce chose to take Dick under his wing. There are a myriad of possibilities that could occur. He could have outright refused. He could have adopted Dick but never train him. He could have guided Dick's life into adulthood from behind-the-scenes. All types of scenarios. It doesn't matter. If you can form a cohesive character arc that would feasibly lead to Batman and Robin becoming an entity -- you've got all you need to support the idea.

Except you haven't given one that even remotely resembles Bale's Bruce Wayne.

In a fan fic I wrote Dick Greyson as a young entrepreneur who left Gotham after the violent murder of his parents but, returned later for business reasons. He and Bruce get along and share the same passions. So much so that Dick is already convinced Bruce may have something to do with Batman

They never become partners, like Robin in Batman but, partners in ideals.

That's one way I can see Grayson working but, an adoptive kid whom Bruce takes care of?

He's barely over his own parental problems; he's in no way ready to mentor anyone.

that's my biggest issue with the Robin detractors. They don't want to even consider it as a possibility. If a coin is flipped and they correctly call the winning side, that result is their only truth. Nothing else exists. There is no alternative. That mentality is fundamentally flawed.

Oh boy...here you are making assumptions.

you have yet to prove your case other than saying. "It's happened before, it can happen again."

I'm not convinced about anything until I have some good reasonings and you haven't provided me with that yet.

If you can come up with a reasonable way Dick can be in this movie as Robin,, I will concede but, you can't mask character betrayal as progression.

Bruce isn't a partner, or wanting a partner, especially not one he has to train. it'd be more of a burden than anything else. His own flaws are almost outweighing the good he's doing, bringing someone else in is only putting his ideal on the line

 

[KRIM]

It isn't, but when he would not wish his vigilante identity on anyone else, then it stands to reason that it would be immoral to allow a minor to enter into that lifestyle. Not saying that is the end of the argument, but there's some valid reasoning.

Of course. I never indicated that it should be ignored. On the contrary, it should be incorporated. If only to showcase how not everything is black and white, or easy to adjust according to one's moral code.

I disagree. I believe that while Robin can be done well, it may be more trouble than it's worth. He's hard to do well in a serious film, and, as I stated earlier, if he is done wrong, the film's seriousness (such as in BF) or, even worse, Batman's likability as the protagonist (such as in ASBAR), go out the window.

Difficulty and lack of ambition or passion is a bane to the creative mind. It goes without saying that these are not the qualities I would want in a person trying to write any story.

 

[Godzilla2014]

So what?

Doesn't have to be new, that's what's happening here in this story RIGHT now, it's not passed thing, its a current thing.

Agreed.

So What?

Bruce has not aged 30 years, he's still in his beginnings of being Batman; if you're to suggest to me that in these films that Nolan is making, that from TDK to TDKR suddenly the idea of a young sidekick seems plausible to Bruce/Batman, you're wrong. He's got other stuff to worry about, like dealing with the idea that everyone thinks he's murdered a few people.

To bring in another vigilante while dealing with that would ruin that person's life. Not exactly the virtuous thing to do in any situation.

Robin would not Help Batman in Nolanverse as of now, he's be a big liability; Bruce simply cannot worry about ANOTHER person being killed for his choices, especially one that grants, permits, condones and trains someone to be in this lifestyle.

It doesn't make sense Krim, and nothing you've said thus far even attempts to address this issue. So if you respond, the best way to take down my argument it to tackle why Batman/Bruce would put someone else life in danger at this moment in Nolanverse.

Screw the comics, Screw this 70 years of Bat progression crap. We were never discussing that and how Robin has worked in those incarnations we're talking abut Nolanverse and TDKR because that's all that exist.

I agree.

Nolanverse Bruce's pain and a possible nolanverse Dick's pain would be similar but, to keep Dick from going through MORE pain, the pain Bruce has endured since taking up Batman, Bruce would be obligated to insist Dick find something else to do.

I completely agree.

Bruce wanted to Murder Chill to avenge his parents. That failed

So he left it all behind. That failed.

so he joined the LoS to fight injustice and in turn has to suffer a life of anguish and turmoil to do the right thing.

This doesn't answer the problem of his parents. TDK abandoned his parents Bruce works at Waynecorp to serve Batman, he's forgotten who his father was.

Batman chose to save Rachel Dawes instead of Harvey Dent and in turn created a disaster.

As of the end of TDK Batman shouldn't be teaching anyone anything because he is legitimately messed up.

I agree. At this point, vigilantism has lead Bruce to nothing but pain, so why would he let a minor (who has no authority over his own life) join him in ruining his life.

I don't know what'll stop him but, saying "well he's going to do it anyway" is not a good argument.

Plenty of people lose their families terribly. Batman can't right a pass for all of them to become Batmen. That creates Chaos.

Don't think the law of justice is serving you? Take it into your own hands! you're an upset teen? Full of angst? Fight back and become a vigilante!

no.

Batman is the wrong thing to do but, he was necessary to spark change in Gotham.

The hero Gotham deserves but, doesn't need.

Change means undoing EVERYTHING which in turn means eventually having a Gotham without Batman. We can't even TRY to reach this ideal (however impossible it may be doesn't matter) if we're condoning sidekicks cause they have a sob story

Exactly. Even if Dick "would do it anyway" he is only a minor and, as such, has no authority to make such decisions for himself. The only reason that Bruce should even consider it if actually benefits Dick in some way, and more so than the alternatives.

Not in these films.

Agreed.

Except you haven't given one that even remotely resembles Bale's Bruce Wayne.

In a fan fic I wrote Dick Greyson as a young entrepreneur who left Gotham after the violent murder of his parents but, returned later for business reasons. He and Bruce get along and share the same passions. So much so that Dick is already convinced Bruce may have something to do with Batman

They never become partners, like Robin in Batman but, partners in ideals.

That's one way I can see Grayson working but, an adoptive kid whom Bruce takes care of?

He's barely over his own parental problems; he's in no way ready to mentor anyone.

Agreed.

Oh boy...here you are making assumptions.

you have yet to prove your case other than saying. "It's happened before, it can happen again."

I'm not convinced about anything until I have some good reasonings and you haven't provided me with that yet.

If you can come up with a reasonable way Dick can be in this movie as Robin,, I will concede but, you can't mask character betrayal as progression.

Bruce isn't a partner, or wanting a partner, especially not one he has to train. it'd be more of a burden than anything else. His own flaws are almost outweighing the good he's doing, bringing someone else in is only putting his ideal on the line

Exactly.

Of course. I never indicated that it should be ignored. On the contrary, it should be incorporated. If only to showcase how not everything is black and white, or easy to adjust according to one's moral code.

Hell no! That is moral ambiguity at the cost of making Batman unlikable.

Difficulty and lack of ambition or passion is a bane to the creative mind. It goes without saying that these are not the qualities I would want in a person trying to write any story.

Robin is not a character that really clamor to see. If the writer and director do not want to use Robin, then I am fine with it.

 

[KRIM]

So what?

Doesn't have to be new, that's what's happening here in this story RIGHT now, it's not passed thing, its a current thing.

I asked you earlier to point out what is so unique about Nolan's Bruce. You answered and I replied that it wasn't new at all. Since you have now conceded to that, this rolls back to my previous point; Nolan's Bruce Wayne is not radically different from the various rookie Batman's that have been portrayed. Those men eventually came to take in Dick. This has been true for over seventy years. But Nolan excludes it, and suddenly history is written that Bruce Wayne conveniently has no place for a Robin anymore.

To bring in another vigilante while dealing with that would ruin that person's life. Not exactly the virtuous thing to do in any situation.

Robin would not Help Batman in Nolanverse as of now, he's be a big liability; Bruce simply cannot worry about ANOTHER person being killed for his choices, especially one that grants, permits, condones and trains someone to be in this lifestyle.

It doesn't make sense Krim, and nothing you've said thus far even attempts to address this issue. So if you respond, the best way to take down my argument it to tackle why Batman/Bruce would put someone else life in danger at this moment in Nolanverse.

Screw the comics, Screw this 70 years of Bat progression crap. We were never discussing that and how Robin has worked in those incarnations we're talking abut Nolanverse and TDKR because that's all that exist.

I've brought the comics into this discussion because none of the issues you've brought up are exclusive to Nolan's universe. An idea that is proposed to be on film, is no different than one that is proposed in a book, as long as you're handling it with the same artistic sensibilities. You are dealing with the same core issues. Concepts are not bound by the medium.

Nolanverse Bruce's pain and a possible nolanverse Dick's pain would be similar but, to keep Dick from going through MORE pain, the pain Bruce has endured since taking up Batman, Bruce would be obligated to insist Dick find something else to do.

Bruce wanted to Murder Chill to avenge his parents. That failed

So he left it all behind. That failed.

so he joined the LoS to fight injustice and in turn has to suffer a life of anguish and turmoil to do the right thing.

This doesn't answer the problem of his parents. TDK abandoned his parents Bruce works at Waynecorp to serve Batman, he's forgotten who his father was.

Batman chose to save Rachel Dawes instead of Harvey Dent and in turn created a disaster.

As of the end of TDK Batman shouldn't be teaching anyone anything because he is legitimately messed up.

I don't know what'll stop him but, saying "well he's going to do it anyway" is not a good argument.

Plenty of people lose their families terribly. Batman can't right a pass for all of them to become Batmen. That creates Chaos.

Don't think the law of justice is serving you? Take it into your own hands! you're an upset teen? Full of angst? Fight back and become a vigilante!

no.

Batman is the wrong thing to do but, he was necessary to spark change in Gotham.

The hero Gotham deserves but, doesn't need.

Change means undoing EVERYTHING which in turn means eventually having a Gotham without Batman. We can't even TRY to reach this ideal (however impossible it may be doesn't matter) if we're condoning sidekicks cause they have a sob story

Not in these films.

Except you haven't given one that even remotely resembles Bale's Bruce Wayne.

In a fan fic I wrote Dick Greyson as a young entrepreneur who left Gotham after the violent murder of his parents but, returned later for business reasons. He and Bruce get along and share the same passions. So much so that Dick is already convinced Bruce may have something to do with Batman

They never become partners, like Robin in Batman but, partners in ideals.

That's one way I can see Grayson working but, an adoptive kid whom Bruce takes care of?

He's barely over his own parental problems; he's in no way ready to mentor anyone.

Oh boy...here you are making assumptions.

you have yet to prove your case other than saying. "It's happened before, it can happen again."

I'm not convinced about anything until I have some good reasonings and you haven't provided me with that yet.

If you can come up with a reasonable way Dick can be in this movie as Robin,, I will concede but, you can't mask character betrayal as progression.

Bruce isn't a partner, or wanting a partner, especially not one he has to train. He may take one reluctantly but, that's because SHE won't give him any choice and even then it'll be a questionably wrong choice to make.

As I read this whole, I've realized it's become futile for me to further take part in this discussion with you. When one is entirely dismissive of entirely plausible arguments, that is where debate ends. As an extension of my previous analogy, I wanted to discuss the possibilities of a coin landing on Heads. You've ignored that and shifted the focus to Tails. To make it abundantly clear: I don't care about Tails. I am perfectly aware that a coin is capable of landing on both. Keyword there. They are both perfectly valid results. But I am not here to discuss both. I am here to discuss one particular conclusion. The presence of one does not negate the existence of the other. There are an infinite number of solutions that contradict or prevent one scenario from taking place. Let me iterate: I don't care. As long as there is one, it is validated.

For reasons I cannot explain it is not within your frame of mind to imagine an alternative position. When concerning human cognition and emotion-based decision making, the words "never" and "can't" do not exist. There is a root cause for every thought and action. There is a possibility for every path. As someone who's been in clinical psychology for a little over half a decade of experience with dozens of patients, it is entirely puzzling to come across a mindset so adamant that any given scenario cannot take place given the right circumstances.

There is no room for debate here. There are disagreements and there are dismissions. I have no place in the latter.

 

[The_Raganork]

I have no idea what to say. Ypu're speaking about something that's NOT Nolanverse.

Nolanverse is 3 films; if you're saying after TDKR Robin could be incorporated with the Style Nolan has created...well I guess but, considering neither you or I know what happens at the end of TDKR anything either of us come up with simply isn't Nolanverse; it's Raganorkverse or Krimverse with Nolan undertones.

My point is very clear, Robin is a total backstabbing over the character we know as Bruce in Nolanverse because Nolanverse dictates he's not ready for a sidekick or to teach anyone yet.

If Nolan went on to make 6 films, I'm sure the progression you speak of could be worked in but, he's not doing 6 films he's doing 3 and his universe only exist in those three extensions.

So in his universe (BB TDK TDKR) Robin is something that would be random and cut straight into the character of Bruce that he's struggled so hard to create.

Futhermore your assumptions that I'm not considering your alternative position is silly. You have been given a finite world: Nolanverse.

I'm willing to grant you that in a grounded universe similar to Nolanverse Robin is possible

But Nolanverse is finite and he's created something in them that you HAVE to abide by, if you don't like it,too bad. That's the criterion of this debate.

If you want to discuss Robin in a "realistic" or "grounded" Batmanverse then go ahead but, that's not what's being presented here, we are talking about Nolanverse and his story is about Bruce Wayne becoming someone who COULD one day become the man you think is capable of taking in Robin

But Nolanverse will never reach that because this is his last film.

Is that a little more clearer?

 

[KRIM]

I have no idea what to say. Ypu're speaking about something that's NOT Nolanverse.

Nolanverse is 3 films; if you're saying after TDKR Robin could be incorporated with the Style Nolan has created...well I guess but, considering neither you or I know what happens at the end of TDKR anything either of us come up with simply isn't Nolanverse; it's Raganorkverse or Krimverse with Nolan undertones.

I don't see how this pertains to anything. First, Nolanverse has not even completed itself so it's quite impossible to contradict something that has yet to happen. Regardless of what we know is about to happen. Second, I'm not here to dictate how Nolan's series progresses. I'm merely having fun in the hypothetical.

My point is very clear, Robin is a total backstabbing over the character we know as Bruce in Nolanverse because Nolanverse dictates he's not ready for a sidekick or to teach anyone yet.

If Nolan went on to make 6 films, I'm sure the progression you speak of could be worked in but, he's not doing 6 films he's doing 3 and his universe only exist in those three extensions.

So in his universe (BB TDK TDKR) Robin is something that would be random and cut straight into the character of Bruce that he's struggled so hard to create.

Futhermore your assumptions that I'm not considering your alternative position is silly. You have been given a finite world: Nolanverse.

I'm willing to grant you that in a grounded universe similar to Nolanverse Robin is possible

But Nolanverse is finite and he's created something in them that you HAVE to abide by, if you don't like it,too bad. That's the criterion of this debate.

There's several key points at play here, but I'll try to simply it. Yes, you are correct that in regards to what is canon, anything that Nolan hasn't set out as fact is a deviation from the established universe. We then delve into elseworlds territory. But that doesn't necessarily make them contradictions as long as the intent isn't to dictate what should have or actually happened.

For example, today I had the option of eating bacon & eggs or a bowl of cereal for breakfast. I chose the former. Neither are uncharacteristic meals for me, in spite of favoring one choice. I could have eaten cereal, but at that moment I preferred the bacon & eggs. Now if someone were to say that I did eat cereal, then yes, that would be contradictory as that is not what took place.

If you want to discuss Robin in a "realistic" or "grounded" Batmanverse then go ahead but, that's not what's being presented here, we are talking about Nolanverse and his story is about Bruce Wayne becoming someone who COULD one day become the man you think is capable of taking in Robin

But Nolanverse will never reach that because this is his last film.

The boards have already come to accept Robin won't be in this series, as far back as 2006 when both Nolan and Bale expressed disinterest in the character. We're not here to insist otherwise. Rather, the merits of the character as a concept that could feasibly exist in this universe Nolan has created.

It doesn't matter if this is his last. There will be countless discussions of how it could continue and where it can go, because we have enough material to gauge the tonality and direction of this interpretation. It's all in good fun. No one here is out to begrudge Nolan because he chose to go a different way.

Is that a little more clearer?

Yes. I'm a little relieved that you aren't as hardheaded as I initially perceived you to be. Still, it's striking that you're even taking part in this discussion if you're only concerned with what Nolan puts up on the screen. You probably should come back next year when the film is out.

 

[The_Raganork]

See I think we basically agree except I'm talking Nolanverse and your talking a larger thing.

You're right Nolanverse isn't complete but, we know where it's headed.


My point: Robin can't be in TDKR based off of what we've seen thus far (And I think, if I'm reading you correctly you agree) and if TDKR is the end of Nolanverse (which we know it is) he can't be in Nolanverse. You say people can speculate but, they can't...it won't be Nolanverse it'll be their interpretation of Nolan verse. Unless TDKR ends with this new idea that Bruce can have a sidekick; then you can speculate if a 4th film could include Robin.

But any further is uncharted territory unrelated to Nolan, if I were to speculate a 4th film now with Nolan's merits in mind, it STILL wouldn't be Nolanverse because I don't know where TDKR is going to lead off. Speculation of his verse is only going to be one movie ahead


However, if I'm to speculate over a 4 5 6 7 film from Nolan, I would be silly to deny that the way his films are going now can eventually lead to a Robin.

Of course they could given a good amount of time and story working. I'm saying they won't because our time in Nolanverse is limited to three films and the third film will follow Bruce into a territory that still prevents Robin.

 

[KRIM]

Yes, that an accurate summation. The misunderstanding was in the approaching the character purely from a conceptual point of view, or from a pre-existing state in which he has already been dismissed.

 

[The_Raganork]

Yes, that an accurate summation. The misunderstanding was in the approaching the character purely from a conceptual point of view, or from a pre-existing state in which he has already been dismissed.

Huzzah we agree!!!!!!!1

Great mental sparring with you

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

btw is that Arkham City pic with Batman and Robin a manip or real?

manip.

But. Has, everyone agreed now? Robin can, and should, work? YAY!

 

[.:TheDarkKnight]

I'd like to hunt down all 30 of you and punch you right in the face.

 

[Nevincer]

I'd like to hunt down all 30 of you and punch you right in the face.

Edit: Ah, gotcha. The 30 people that said yes in the poll.