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

[COMPO]

I would say 13 instead of 12 (what difference does one year make, I hear you cry? The answer: I don't know but it just does) but the rest sounds all good

You sound like Dumbledore :P

Robin Year one is awesome (far far far better than Dark Victory. Robin is barely in it).When Robin is introduced maybe in the next series this is the book they should come to first.

I'd say Robin Year One should be the second film, with Robin being fully robin and fully trained to fight but still learning. The first film should be like DV in that we see him earn his right as Robin and also kind of like the 89 script that had robin in.

The best way to deal with that controversy is to confront it head on in the story itself. It makes for some good drama.

I always liked this scene, also I liked the beginning where it was sort of a myth that Batman was fighting with a kid and people didn't believe it or hid the fact they got beat up by a kid.

Nolan Batman has been guilt-tripping over possibly ruining other people's lives. He just lost Rachel last film and was pretty broken up over it.

I just don't get how some people here think Robin would logically fit into the third film after what transpired in the last one.

I don't say the next film, but the fourth film or something, somewhere a long the lines he should come to film, for me this is the Director... Add Robin thread

 

[The Riddler]

i would hate the movies if robin were added. i like robin as a character in the comics, but in a movie based more on realism, it's ridiculous.

and i don't like the character of batman in relation to robin being transplanted to the screen. we don't need to see batman as a father figure, imo.

 

[Saint]

It IS just the suit. And the age. Since they're the same character, heh.

It's like a Spider-Man fan wanting Eddie Brock to show up as Anti-Venom without doing Venom first. If you don't lay the groundwork of the character's first identity, the second one doesn't make sense. Nightwing without Robin is not Nightwing; he's just another vigilante. Isn't that the type of **** we frown upon? Nightwing in Name Only?

But there are people around here wanting Bane to be a heavily armor merc/ex-cop/Black Mask-Deadshot hybrid (whatever the hell that means), so nothing surprises me.

Yeah, this idea that Nightwing should appear is preposterous; it completely sucks the life out of the character, and I think betrays a complete misunderstanding of who Dick Grayson is in the Batman mythology.

 

[Saint]

The best way to deal with that controversy is to confront it head on in the story itself. It makes for some good drama.

Yeah, I've been saying this for a while. All the little problems we think of with regards to Robin aren't reasons he shouldn't be used, they're reasons he should be used. Those moral dilemmas can be leveraged to make for a great story.

 

[Knight Rise]

Yeah, this idea that Nightwing should appear is preposterous; it completely sucks the life out of the character, and I think betrays a complete misunderstanding of who Dick Grayson is in the Batman mythology.

exactly. there is always gonna be that one guy thats gonna hunt this website down and start a thread about why that was a horrible idea

 

[COMPO]

Well Batman is very protective of Robin in his training, Robin has to do things by his rules so its not like Batman is going to put Robin in too much danger.

 

[papie]

Very well.

A child can't be smarter/wiser than an adult Bruce Wayne.
A child can't be stronger than an adult Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne has no use for a child as sidekick.

Also, Batman putting at risk something more than his own life after Dent and Rachel?

Sure..

 

[El Payaso]

Ah, the old classic discussion. And it goes in circles every time.

For me, this character can work in comics and animation, where you can accept two superheroes in the same reality or a child who's as able as the well trained Batman to fight crime.

But in movies I'm afraid Robin is just a too far-fetched concept to put next to Batman, as a sidekick, as some sort of a adoptive son. Oh sure, amna dressed as a bat is far-fetched, but to add to that this junior superhero next to him (and not as an enemy for example) is too much, or at least it makes the whole thing too close to being ludicrous.

I must admit though, that BF's Robin was acceptable for the tone of the movie. At least Dick Grayson (Robin himself was something of a waste).

Very well.

A child can't be smarter/wiser than an adult Bruce Wayne.
A child can't be stronger than an adult Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne has no use for a child as sidekick.

Yes. Robin would be always doomed to be helped.

And if Bruce Wayne needed to be near his 30's to become a crime-fighter, it's logical that Dick Grayson should need the same.

 

[DaveMoral]

Nolan Batman has been guilt-tripping over possibly ruining other people's lives. He just lost Rachel last film and was pretty broken up over it.

I just don't get how some people here think Robin would logically fit into the third film after what transpired in the last one.

You have to read some stories with Batman being in flat denial of taking on a partner... but ultimately doing it because the kid's got the drive, he's going to do so with or without Batman's approval, and he's capable. Dark Victory and Robin Year One show this(Year One is the better Robin story than Dark Victory, but I think Dark Victory is a great example of how Dick Grayson can be brought into the Nolan world as NOT shown as Robin right off the bat... no pun intended... plus it has the added benefit of being part of the Loeb/Sale epic that Nolan has an obvious affinity for), and so does Batman Year Three and A Lonely Place of Dying. Year Three and ALPoD make the case for why Batman needs Robin too. And well, IMO.

 

[Indy Flash]

Reading that comic page changed my mind. Nolan could make it work.

 

[Changeling]

If it's unrealistic for Batman to take Robin along with him to fight crime, maybe they could use Dick as an Oracle type role, until he's old enough and trained enough to fight alongside Bats.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Even in animation frankly the batman-robin team can look quite off. I really enjoyed the batman under the red hood dc film, i though it was very well done and had a dark look to it.

But when they had the flashback scenes of batman fighting along the young jason todd/robin it just took me out of it. It just looked really cheesy with this young elfin boy fighting side by side this dark figure.

 

[Saint]

Very well.

A child can't be smarter/wiser than an adult Bruce Wayne.
A child can't be stronger than an adult Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne has no use for a child as sidekick.

This reasoning is completely preposterous; your argument is basically that if there are two soldiers, one of whom is more experienced, that the second soldier is useless. By your logic, commanding officers should march into battle without support.

There are certainly valid reasons why Batman would not employ a sidekick; this is not one of them.

But in movies I'm afraid Robin is just a too far-fetched concept to put next to Batman, as a sidekick, as some sort of a adoptive son. Oh sure, amna dressed as a bat is far-fetched, but to add to that this junior superhero next to him (and not as an enemy for example) is too much, or at least it makes the whole thing too close to being ludicrous.

As has been discussed so frequently in the past, one need only employ a modicum of imagination to devise a scenario in which Robin can perform useful tasks that do not involve being a "Junior Superhero" and tagging along with Batman to beat up thugs--which, at least in Nolan's films, I agree would probably not function.

 

[papie]

This reasoning is completely preposterous; your argument is basically that if there are two soldiers, one of whom is more experienced, that the second soldier is useless. By your logic, commanding officers should march into battle without support.

There are certainly valid reasons why Batman would not employ a sidekick; this is not one of them.

No, it is exactly the reason why there are legal distinctions between someone who is an adult and someone who is a child. You wouldn't send a child to war now would ya?

If Robin was an adult my arguments are invalid.

 

[Saint]

Even in animation frankly the batman-robin team can look quite off. I really enjoyed the batman under the red hood dc film, i though it was very well done and had a dark look to it.

But when they had the flashback scenes of batman fighting along the young jason todd/robin it just took me out of it. It just looked really cheesy with this young elfin boy fighting side by side this dark figure.

Well, certainly, anyone in that old costume is going to look silly.

I've been watching Young Justice, and I think they have a really strong interpretation of Robin--he has a darker costume, he emphasizes stealth and guile as opposed to direct assault, and it's easy to imagine him working alongside Batman. However, he still has Robin's more spirited attitude--he'll disappear, and you'll hear him laughing from somewhere, because he's about to bring **** down on the bad guy's head.

Part of why Batman and Robin have a good dynamic is because of the dichotomy between them, so while, yes, it's usually good to make Robin darker, if he's just a mini-Batman, that becomes pointless and defeats the purpose. This is why Damian operates as Dick's Robin rather than Bruce's; Damian is so much like Bruce that such a partnership would simply not be interesting--it's much better to partner Damian with Dick, who is a much more free-spirited Batman.

 

[Saint]

No, it is exactly the reason why there are legal distinctions between someone who is an adult and someone who is a child. You wouldn't send a child to war now would ya?

Yes, Robin's age would fall under the "valid reasons" I mentioned in my previous post; your reasoning, however, cites inferior strength and wisdom, which is silly, as per my original post. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that.

Edit: To be more clear: you did not write "It would be wrong to use a child," you wrote "There would be no use for a child because the child is weaker and less wise." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that someone who is not as strong or wise as his leader is not useful; this is simply incorrect.

 

[regwec]

Robin is at least as physically strong, agile, and cunning as The Joker. Nobody argues that The Joker is not a significant threat to Batman, so why would anyone fail to realize that Robin could be a useful ally?

 

[Saint]

Robin is at least as physically strong, agile, and cunning as The Joker. Nobody argues that The Joker is not a significant threat to Batman, so why would anyone fail to realize that Robin could be a useful ally?

And it's not like we're talking about a twelve year old, anyway. Well, I'm not.

...Unless it's a movie by Guillermo del Toro. In that case, anything goes.

 

[papie]

Yes, Robin's age would fall under the "valid reasons" I mentioned in my previous post; your reasoning, however, cites inferior strength and wisdom, which is silly, as per my original post. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that.

Edit: To be more clear: you did not write "It would be wrong to use a child," you wrote "There would be no use for a child because the child is weaker and less wise." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that someone who is not as strong or wise as his leader is not useful; this is simply incorrect.

Okay, I get your point.
But I state that a child is in any way inferior to an adult. Therefore having a child as a sidekick is useless.

Above that, I think that in Batman's arrogance, he would only employ someone who he thought was smarter and/or stronger.
Unless he wanted to curse someone else with the education to become the Dark Knight, which is quite the unredeeming and unsatisfying destiny.

 

[Knight Rise]

Why is it hard to believe that hes not in the freakin movie when the director and leading actor said so themselves? These ****ing "twists" are getting everyone brainwashed into conspiracys and speculations that you have to go into so much detail to explain, but theres always a guy to come back and find a way to beat that as well. You go in circles discussing something to waste time on something you already heard! Bale wouldn't do Batman with Robin and Nolan thinks Robin wouldn't fit in this certain time. Holy ****ing ****, how hard is it to believe it folks?

 

[Saint]

Okay, I get your point.
But I state that a child is in any way inferior to an adult. Therefore having a child as a sidekick is useless.

Well, that really depends on the child and the age. The age of majority isn't really special; we just had to pick an age and that's the one we picked. If you have a particularly gifted child (and Robin would have to be an extremely gifted child), it's a good bet he's just as prepared for life at fifteen as he is at eighteen. Physical shortcomings can still be a concern (again, depending on the individual; some people are in the best shape of their lives at 16), but whether that's a problem is largely dependent on the circumstances the writer chooses.

 

[regwec]

I don't think anyone is insisting that he is in the movie; but (patiently) explaining why there is little reason that he shouldn't be.

I would have though that was 'freakin' obvious.

 

[Saint]

Why is it hard to believe that hes not in the freakin movie when the director and leading actor said so themselves? These ****ing "twists" are getting everyone brainwashed into conspiracys and speculations that you have to go into so much detail to explain, but theres always a guy to come back and find a way to beat that as well. You go in circles discussing something to waste time on something you already heard! Bale wouldn't do Batman with Robin and Nolan thinks Robin wouldn't fit in this certain time. Holy ****ing ****, how hard is it to believe it folks?

Er, we know. Or, at least most of us do. Most of the people in this thread aren't discussing the character because they think he's going to be in the movie, but rather because they think it's a subject worth talking about.

 

[Knight Rise]

Er, we know. Or, at least most of us do. Most of the people in this thread aren't discussing the character because they think he's going to be in the movie, but rather because they think it's a subject worth talking about.

I've only seen one or two posters who knows that Robin wont be in it, but everyone else STILL thinks that the whole "Robin's Cave" and "Joseph Gordon-Levitt in talks" means that hes got a strong chance of playing Robin or Nightwing (both really stupid thoughts if you think it over).

 

[Saint]

I've only seen one or two posters who knows that Robin wont be in it, but everyone else STILL thinks that the whole "Robin's Cave" and "Joseph Gordon-Levitt in talks" means that hes got a strong chance of playing Robin or Nightwing (both really stupid thoughts if you think it over).

Maybe I'm just missing those posts, because I haven't really noticed any of that. I do tend to skip posts that look like they might be stupid, though.