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

But how can Bruce excuse putting a young man in danger in the same way he's been.

Batman has been shot, mauled, stabbed.

When is it acceptable for him to allow someone into that potential danger?
 
Pointless argument.... No way in hell is Nolan going to have Robin in his take on batman, case closed, end thread and all other robin related pointless threads....

Boy, I don't think you actually read my post.

"If we ever get a Batman and Robin movie again.."

All the difference in the world.
 
The way I've wrote it is that Bruce isn't training Dick as a sidekick. It's so he can become Nightwing so to speak in years to come. Dick becomes Robin on his own to get Zucco himself, because Batman is dealing with Mr. Freeze.

As for the comics....he musn't care at all :hehe:
 
The way I've wrote it is that Bruce isn't training Dick as a sidekick. It's so he can become Nightwing so to speak in years to come. Dick becomes Robin on his own to get Zucco himself, because Batman is dealing with Mr. Freeze.

As for the comics....he musn't care at all :hehe:

A good way of semi-avoiding the problem.

Good job :up:

But eventually mustn't Batman be obligated to fight Robin/Nightwing.

isn't his philosophy to stop every crime he can and to not differentiate which are right and wrong?
 
What's funny is that all those questions can easily be forgone even by today's audience just because they can. If we were presented with a Batman movie with a teenage Robin that gets in almost as much peril as Batman, I imagine film critics would call the ethics of the situation into question because that's just what many are itching to do... but general audiences would just gloss over it like they have for 70 years because Robin being there just seems organic. Natural.
 
That doesn't answer the question any. Ethics has never stopped any salacious or ridiculous film from being made. I'm interested in how to make a cohesive story, not so much about how it'll be received by the general audience.

The general audience will watch pretty much anything.
 
This is how I'm writing Robin in my script.

Firstly. Bruce Wayne is a lot more disturbed, and there's a reason why this works in Robin's favour.

In the script, Bruce does not see Dick Grayson as a person so to speak - he see's himself. Since Joe Chill was never found and tried, Batman see's Zucco as his parents murderer, since he see's his younger self in Dick.

Dick is taken to a foster home, where Batman visits him every night. When Zucco's men try to kill Dick, fearing he's the key witness, Batman takes him in.

So initially, Dick is trained so he can become a fighter for when he's older, not as a sidekick.

When Gotham is troubled by Mr. Freeze, Batman concerns himself with him. But Dick wants revenge and thinks Batman is neglecting his parents murder. So he dresses up as Robin, and goes to kill Zucco himself. Never fighting criminals, but using the skills he knows best to infiltrate Zucco's location. Eventually Robin finds him, but cant bring himself to kill him. That answers the question symbolicley "Would Batman kill Joe Chill?" Through Robin not killing his parents murderer, the answer is, no.

I felt if Robin were to be in it, he should have a more important meaning. He is a representation of innocense in Batman's world.
Since I'm writing Batman as a self-proclaiming 'Man Of Vengeance' in this film, as opposed to Christian Bale's 'Man Of Justice', I felt Dick should be that guiding light.
Cause this Batman has no proper idea of what he's fighting for, and the only way he could answer that question is if he came face to face with Chill...Vengeance or Justice?
In the movie, I have him debating wether he should actually kill Freeze or not, since he has no pity for him (and this is the first time he comes face to face with a Supervillain). But by the end, as Freeze tells his tragic tale - Batman remembers Dick not killing Zucco, and realises not everything in the world is so black and white as he first saw it, he lets Freeze go!

So the events help Batman realise what he truly is. This is then followed by an invitation into the JLA from Superman. Happy Ending :)

So you mean kind of like the Rorschach-esque insane paranoid psycho-Batman that Frank Miller wrote in The Dark Knight Returns at the end of his career, and then a lot of writers simply copied for many years afterwards? While it worked for

^ I like that. Batman as a restrained Punisher in that he's a Man of Vengeance. Even in that role, he wouldn't kill, but he's got no real direction. He's just punching faces because, well it feels good to him. Robin representing innocence for Batman is something I think we see in comics even from the start, though it's not articulated as such back then. That never really comes to fruition until 89-90 with the advent of Tim Drake and him pointing out that Batman has lost something in the aftermath of Jason Todd's death. While he was more grim after Dick left and struck out on his own to become Nightwing in the 70s, he didn't lose it. Because Dick was still alive to represent Bruce's own innocence lost. He fully bonds to Jason in that regard, and with Dick having some animosity for Bruce anyway, Jason steps into the role. With Joker killing him, it's as if Bruce's entire mission is a failure. Tim comes along and points out that Batman needs Robin, that Robin keeps him from becoming a monster that is little more than a bully in a Halloween costume.

If we ever get a Batman and Robin movie again, it needs to be approached like this. In which case, Dick's youth cannot be shied away from. It's that youthfulness that gives Robin meaning. If he's 19-21 years old like in Batman Forever and B&R then Robin is just there to be there. If he's even 14 or 15 he can still represent for Bruce his own lost innocence. Robin keeps Batman in check by his very presence, makes him a man with a real mission and a meaning behind what he does. And simultaneously Bruce holds Dick together and keeps him from falling apart by being his adoptive father and mentor. Which is something that Alfred surely tried to be for Bruce, but never really could be. Probably at least because he had been in the employ of the Waynes all of Bruce's life.

I have to say that I agree with you, though Dick should be adopted young, then train for several years before actually becoming Robin.

Thanks Dave :) Good insight there as well.

I was just researching what Vengeance really is, and what would it mean to Batman?

It was the talk between Rachel and Bruce in BB that got me thinking about the difference between Justice and Revenge. Are they really that different that they should be put in seperate categories? When Justice is served, revenge comes along with it in situations.

Say somebody is killed, and the murderer is sentenced, Justice AND Revenge have been served. That's what I believe Batman truly is about. He's about Revenge for the victims and those who suffer loss, and about reaping Vengeance on those are guilty. That's why Bruce became Batman originally. But he also has the respect for Justice that the Punisher doesn't have, that's why he wouldn't cross the line and leaves the rest up to the authorities above him.

I tried looking at Batman and Robin's relationship from a realistic POV. What effect would he have on this emotionally shattered child, when he himself is just as in a bad place? Cause I in the story, I have Dick being influenced by Bruce.

He asks Bruce "Would you kill the man who murdered your parents?". Even Bruce doesn't honestly know the answer to that, and Dick interprets that as 'yes'. So he goes off to kill Zucco, but can't bring himself, and turns him over to the authorities. And to Bruce, as he see's himself in Dick, thats what he's really like as well. So Dick helps Bruce keep his innocense for not turning into a criminal himself eventually.

I agree.
 
People there wont be a Robin in TDKR.....Nolan said "No Robin"
And i'am glad about that.
 
People there wont be a Robin in TDKR.....Nolan said "No Robin"
And i'am glad about that.

Try paying attention to what the thread is actually talking about now, eh?

No one thinks Robin will be in TDKR ,for that matter, anything Nolan ever does. The thread has evolved.
 
That doesn't answer the question any. Ethics has never stopped any salacious or ridiculous film from being made. I'm interested in how to make a cohesive story, not so much about how it'll be received by the general audience.

The general audience will watch pretty much anything.

I'm not saying it should be sidestepped, just that it could. And it strikes me that the ethical questions are only relevant in so far as the world of Batman is constructed as a "grounded" world like Nolan's rather than a more comic book-esque world. Batman himself never grappled with the ethics of a teen sidekick until after Jason Todd was murdered. Now the Bat family is bigger than ever.

I think you solve the problem, more or less, by having Batman train Robin because if he doesn't Robin is very likely to go out and do something stupid and get himself killed. So Batman gives him an outlet, taking him on patrols and teaching him observation skills and investigation, but for the most part doesn't allow Robin to get into the thick of it. Not while he's so young. At most Robin cuts his teeth on busting muggers. Not dropping in on warehouses full of gangsters armed to the teeth.
 
Try paying attention to what the thread is actually talking about now, eh?

No one thinks Robin will be in TDKR ,for that matter, anything Nolan ever does. The thread has evolved.

Shut up,i'am just reacting on the title of this topic.....and i know some people
still want Robin somehow:doh:

So let me react the way i want.:cmad:
 
Anytime the Robin debate comes up, I immediately think of the beginning of TDK when those impersonators were "trying to help you!" and Batman shouts "I don't need help!". Whether that could serve as a statement that Nolan's Batman will remain solo or a foreshadowing that he will be proven wrong and need help later. Or maybe I am looking too much into it lol. But that is what I think of.
 
I'm not saying it should be sidestepped, just that it could. And it strikes me that the ethical questions are only relevant in so far as the world of Batman is constructed as a "grounded" world like Nolan's rather than a more comic book-esque world. Batman himself never grappled with the ethics of a teen sidekick until after Jason Todd was murdered. Now the Bat family is bigger than ever.

I think you solve the problem, more or less, by having Batman train Robin because if he doesn't Robin is very likely to go out and do something stupid and get himself killed. So Batman gives him an outlet, taking him on patrols and teaching him observation skills and investigation, but for the most part doesn't allow Robin to get into the thick of it. Not while he's so young. At most Robin cuts his teeth on busting muggers. Not dropping in on warehouses full of gangsters armed to the teeth.

Why does it strike that morals appear in grounded films rather than fantasy films?

That being said...so what? If this thread has gone to "Can Robin appear in a future Batman film" then it should be closed. The answer has to be yes.

To try and keep it worth talking about I thought the conversation degraded into "Can Robin exist in a Nolan-esque world."

If it morals have to be discussed because it's a considerable moral downgrade to have a man fight for justice in Gotham's underbelly and then bring a kid along for the ride.

While you're idea of showing him the ropes from a distance is nice, it still doesn't really solve the moral problem. I could suggest that a cop and his son go on drug patrols together. He sets his son up a block away from the bust with binoculars to watch the bust and talks to him on a walkie talkie as it goes down.

Still seems rather odd and irresponsible to do that.

The argument that "he's going to do it anyway, so might as well get him to do it right" is alright except Batman, by his code of morals would probably just detain Dick and give him to Gordon and tell him the situation and make sure he doesn't do it again. Taking him along still seems like the wrong thing to do simply because Batman's job is dangerous and most of all ILLEGAL; it's the permissible destruction of a moral code in young person all for the sake of some delayed revenge masked as 'justice'.

Your last suggestion appears to be that, when Dick is old enough Batman can let him take to the streets more actively. His age is only part of the problem in what Batman seems to be suggesting (under your story) even if he was grown Batman would have say: "Stop, you're a criminal, you can't do this" and that's just the objective point of view, if he's got a history with Dick then as a moral man he's got to insist that Dick stop because it's dangerous and he wouldn't want his friend to engage in such a dangerous life, all over his parents death.

It won't avenge them and it'll engage him in a perpetual life of sacrifice and loss
 
So you mean kind of like the Rorschach-esque insane paranoid psycho-Batman that Frank Miller wrote in The Dark Knight Returns at the end of his career, and then a lot of writers simply copied for many years afterwards?

I'm basing his characterisation loosely on TDKR. Where he's pretty screwed up, not generally psychopathic. Just that he feel's strongly more about Vengeance rather than Justice, until the end. That's where he tones down a bit for the sake of the path he was heading down.
 
Why does it strike that morals appear in grounded films rather than fantasy films?

That being said...so what? If this thread has gone to "Can Robin appear in a future Batman film" then it should be closed. The answer has to be yes.

To try and keep it worth talking about I thought the conversation degraded into "Can Robin exist in a Nolan-esque world."

If it morals have to be discussed because it's a considerable moral downgrade to have a man fight for justice in Gotham's underbelly and then bring a kid along for the ride.

While you're idea of showing him the ropes from a distance is nice, it still doesn't really solve the moral problem. I could suggest that a cop and his son go on drug patrols together. He sets his son up a block away from the bust with binoculars to watch the bust and talks to him on a walkie talkie as it goes down.

Still seems rather odd and irresponsible to do that.

The argument that "he's going to do it anyway, so might as well get him to do it right" is alright except Batman, by his code of morals would probably just detain Dick and give him to Gordon and tell him the situation and make sure he doesn't do it again. Taking him along still seems like the wrong thing to do simply because Batman's job is dangerous and most of all ILLEGAL; it's the permissible destruction of a moral code in young person all for the sake of some delayed revenge masked as 'justice'.

Your last suggestion appears to be that, when Dick is old enough Batman can let him take to the streets more actively. His age is only part of the problem in what Batman seems to be suggesting (under your story) even if he was grown Batman would have say: "Stop, you're a criminal, you can't do this" and that's just the objective point of view, if he's got a history with Dick then as a moral man he's got to insist that Dick stop because it's dangerous and he wouldn't want his friend to engage in such a dangerous life, all over his parents death.

It won't avenge them and it'll engage him in a perpetual life of sacrifice and loss

But it was Batman who roped Dick into his world. If he felt that way about Dick, and everything in general, then he might as well stop since those are his actions as well. And their fight is to avenge all the victims of crime, to stop what happened to them from happening to anyone else. If Dick wants too follow Batman's philosophy, then why not? :)

But the way Batman is in Nolan's films, I don't think he would have Robin in his life. You need the more screwed up Batman for that to happen :hehe:
 
The Flying Graysons should be the halftime entertainment at the football game :hehe:
 
But it was Batman who roped Dick into his world.

That's the problem. That doesn't seem creepy and wrong to you in any way?

If he felt that way about Dick, and everything in general, then he might as well stop since those are his actions as well.

That's the complexity of the character, in order to fight criminality, he becomes a criminal. Sure their crimes might be seen as more horrible than his but, he's still breaking the law. Batman IS a criminal and a hypocrite. But it's just that that makes him effective in what he does. If he's willing to give a pass for people who are doing it like him, then we'd have a bunch of vigilante's out there doing whatever.

In the comics this may be fine but, in a grounded world this is a severe issue. If Batman can say he doesn't obey the laws because they're unfair or get in the way of serving justice, what's there to stop me from saying the same thing and robbing a bank because of poor and justice is to make me have a sustainable life and fair would be allowing me to take it.

And their fight is to avenge all the victims of crime, to stop what happened to them from happening to anyone else.

Which by it's nature is impossible.

plus I'm not convinced that all incarnations of Batman aren't just a kid trying to avenge his parents death.

If Dick wants too follow Batman's philosophy, then why not? :)

Sure he can but, if Batman is being Batman, then he will come into disagreement with Dick.

But the way Batman is in Nolan's films, I don't think he would have Robin in his life.
I thought that was the discussion...in Nolan films.

The name of the thread is "Nolan...add Robin" if not Nolan then Nolan-esque. If it's just ANY incarnation, of course Robin can exist; that's not even debatable.


You need the more screwed up Batman for that to happen :hehe:

I'm not convinced Robin is unjustifiable, I just don't think I've seen the answer here.
 
That's the problem. That doesn't seem creepy and wrong to you in any way?



That's the complexity of the character, in order to fight criminality, he becomes a criminal. Sure their crimes might be seen as more horrible than his but, he's still breaking the law. Batman IS a criminal and a hypocrite. But it's just that that makes him effective in what he does. If he's willing to give a pass for people who are doing it like him, then we'd have a bunch of vigilante's out there doing whatever.

In the comics this may be fine but, in a grounded world this is a severe issue. If Batman can say he doesn't obey the laws because they're unfair or get in the way of serving justice, what's there to stop me from saying the same thing and robbing a bank because of poor and justice is to make me have a sustainable life and fair would be allowing me to take it.



Which by it's nature is impossible.

plus I'm not convinced that all incarnations of Batman aren't just a kid trying to avenge his parents death.



Sure he can but, if Batman is being Batman, then he will come into disagreement with Dick.


I thought that was the discussion...in Nolan films.

The name of the thread is "Nolan...add Robin" if not Nolan then Nolan-esque. If it's just ANY incarnation, of course Robin can exist; that's not even debatable.




I'm not convinced Robin is unjustifiable, I just don't think I've seen the answer here.

I'm a fan of a guy who slept in a bed with other people's boy's and was accused of fiddling them. :hehe:

Batman pulling Dick into his life and ways? I guess it's because Bruce never learned to cope with his loss in the right way. He grew bitter and angry towards criminals, and wanted to do something about it.
Training Dick was always about Bruce thinking it would help him, like being Batman helped him. So all in all, Bruce Wayne is definitely not right in the head. So yeah, it is pretty creepy. But in that world, its acceptable to them and to us.

In Nolan's realistic world, where Batman is more sane than the comics, Robin wouldn't work at all.

That's why I'm writing Bruce having this strange feeling of connection to Dick, because he see's Dick as himself and has a chance to avenge him against Zucco, since Joe Chill was never found.
 
That's the problem. That doesn't seem creepy and wrong to you in any way?



That's the complexity of the character, in order to fight criminality, he becomes a criminal. Sure their crimes might be seen as more horrible than his but, he's still breaking the law. Batman IS a criminal and a hypocrite. But it's just that that makes him effective in what he does. If he's willing to give a pass for people who are doing it like him, then we'd have a bunch of vigilante's out there doing whatever.

In the comics this may be fine but, in a grounded world this is a severe issue. If Batman can say he doesn't obey the laws because they're unfair or get in the way of serving justice, what's there to stop me from saying the same thing and robbing a bank because of poor and justice is to make me have a sustainable life and fair would be allowing me to take it.



Which by it's nature is impossible.

plus I'm not convinced that all incarnations of Batman aren't just a kid trying to avenge his parents death.



Sure he can but, if Batman is being Batman, then he will come into disagreement with Dick.


I thought that was the discussion...in Nolan films.

The name of the thread is "Nolan...add Robin" if not Nolan then Nolan-esque. If it's just ANY incarnation, of course Robin can exist; that's not even debatable.




I'm not convinced Robin is unjustifiable, I just don't think I've seen the answer here.

Batman isn't a moral man, strictly speaking. He's out there risking his life and doing so illegally, even if he's tolerated by Gordon. The problem that Robin presents is primarily his age, not the fact of what he's doing. Batman would have no grounds to stand on to tell Dick Grayson "no" because Bruce isn't about to stop being Batman. So I don't really think the question of should he be allowing someone else to do the very same thing he's doing. The only grounds that Bruce would have to stand on is Dick's age.

His primary objection to the dorks in baseball pads(funny that Batman said hockey pads, because it looked like the guy was wearing catcher's gear with a mask and cape) wasn't so much his "I don't need help," but that they didn't have the resources he did. Dick Grayson would have the same resources as Wayne, and Wayne is twisted. No matter how you slice it. I'm not convinced that Nolan's Batman isn't twisted and wouldn't eventually come to the conclusion that Dick's particular dilemma would best be addressed by Bruce mentoring him and giving him an outlet for his rage.

Besides, you're looking for me to do a friggin dissertation on how Robin becomes justifiable and frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest right now to do that. I just like throwing out quick ideas and having a little fun with it.
 
I'm a fan of a guy who slept in a bed with other people's boy's and was accused of fiddling them. :hehe:

Batman pulling Dick into his life and ways? I guess it's because Bruce never learned to cope with his loss in the right way. He grew bitter and angry towards criminals, and wanted to do something about it.
Training Dick was always about Bruce thinking it would help him, like being Batman helped him. So all in all, Bruce Wayne is definitely not right in the head. So yeah, it is pretty creepy. But in that world, its acceptable to them and to us.

In Nolan's realistic world, where Batman is more sane than the comics, Robin wouldn't work at all.

That's why I'm writing Bruce having this strange feeling of connection to Dick, because he see's Dick as himself and has a chance to avenge him against Zucco, since Joe Chill was never found.

This is about the only way I would take Robin in movie form. It sounds like a pretty nice storyline.

For Bruce in the Nolanverse, I'll propose a way of incorporating Robin: Dick's parents are murdered. Afterward Dick abandons the Circus and takes to the Narrows in a journey parallel to Bruce's trip around the world from Begins. It would be Batman who eventually discovers Dick and gives him proper training.

Not that I want him in the movie at this point, or at any point. Just proprosing a way of adapting him.
 
Batman isn't a moral man, strictly speaking. He's out there risking his life and doing so illegally, even if he's tolerated by Gordon. The problem that Robin presents is primarily his age, not the fact of what he's doing. Batman would have no grounds to stand on to tell Dick Grayson "no" because Bruce isn't about to stop being Batman. So I don't really think the question of should he be allowing someone else to do the very same thing he's doing. The only grounds that Bruce would have to stand on is Dick's age.

His primary objection to the dorks in baseball pads(funny that Batman said hockey pads, because it looked like the guy was wearing catcher's gear with a mask and cape) wasn't so much his "I don't need help," but that they didn't have the resources he did. Dick Grayson would have the same resources as Wayne, and Wayne is twisted. No matter how you slice it. I'm not convinced that Nolan's Batman isn't twisted and wouldn't eventually come to the conclusion that Dick's particular dilemma would best be addressed by Bruce mentoring him and giving him an outlet for his rage.

Besides, you're looking for me to do a friggin dissertation on how Robin becomes justifiable and frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest right now to do that. I just like throwing out quick ideas and having a little fun with it.


Why is any of that true?

You've said a lot but, you haven't provided any evidence and frankly it sounds TOTALLY false.
 
Why not just have the flying graysons mentioned or something

Because it would distract from the story. That's a cheap way to set up a sequel featuring Robin.

Imagine if Nolan had done the Joker card thing halfway through BB. It would have been distracting and you'd just be hoping to see the Joker for the rest of the movie. Then you forget about the story at hand.
 
How to make Robin justifiable?

Honestly, in Nolan's world, he wouldn't work. Bruce in these movies is to square IMO. He has too strong of morals to let a child to become a crimefighting sidekick. He just doesn't seem the type that is crazy enough to allow and support something like that.

So just how do you realistically justify Robin's existence and Batman's allowance of it? You simply can't. A sane person wouldn't.
In future movies, a realistic scenario should be created like in The Dark Knight Returns, where you have characters in the media discussing Batman.
You would certainly have a Diane Dimond character who believes Batman is the true danger to Robin, for allowing the kid to accompany him on dangerous activities.

EVERY character would disagree with Batman's choice, and he would certainly lose respect. IMO, it would make him look a little too demented. What works in the comics, doesn't translate well in film.

So I don't agree with there being a Robin in movies, especially at such young age.

The thing I'm doing is Bruce training Dick as a protege, and that's about as much as justifiable actions I would allow. Dick becomes Robin without Bruce knowing about it and scowling him for putting himself in danger like that, but to Bruce and Bruce only, understands why he did it, and that he will help him further with his path.

Batgirl...I feel since she is unofficial to Batman, older than Robin, and doesn't answer to him directly, he would tolerate her. I've got her planned for the sequel :) Where a mass murder committed against the police by Harley, resulting in a breakout in Arkham, releasing The Joker, a disillusioned Commissioner Gordon is considering retiring from the GPD. Barbara who was turned down by the FBI, and told by her dad that she just isn't cut out to be a Cop, becomes Batgirl to help stop the Joker!!!

And it marks the arrival of Hugo Strauss. He is the Chief Psychologist at Arkham, who's odd treatment and obsession with patients, earns him the nickname of 'Hugo Strange' by staff members :)
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"