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

[Two-Face]

I like Two-Face as Batman better.

 

[regwec]

Dini on Detective Comics was my favourite Batman title in years, because it hearkened back to the superb short-stories of the Grant/Breyfogle years.

But, yep, Morrison's run was/is pretty awesome, though a busy mind tends to lose the thread from one month to the next. All the same, I am willing to admit that I have a sentimental attachment to Bruce Wayne as Batman. I feel like I have known him longer than most actual human beings around me. Dick's Batman is great fun, because it allows the sense of youthful adventure to be reintroduced, without a clumsy retcon. But it just ain't quite the same.

Love Damien as Robin, though: the DCU's Stewie Griffin!

 

[DarKJediKnight]

Spoiler

lol, Warm, friendly and loving Bruce is not my cup of tea.

Bruce can't always be dark and brooding. It's called being emo. Sometimes he needs to be warm.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Spoiler

lol, Warm, friendly and loving Bruce is not my cup of tea.

Robin can't really be blamed for his being like that, though. Sure, Robin does bring out a paternal side in him, but he's not always that warm with any of the Robins, and he can be that warm even when they aren't present. Even Nolan's showed signs of sentimentality when he was arguing with Ra's al Ghul or the Joker about the innate goodness of the Gothamites, or when he gave his little speech duet with Gordon at the end of TDK. Keaton's Batman also had his little moments of humanity, though they were mostly displayed in Batman Returns. If he were the bat-ass 100% of the time, people would lose interest in him because they wouldn't be able to relate to him.

Spoiler

Btw, Robin doesn't appear in the comic these panels are taken from. Just thought I'd put that out there.

 

[Timstuff]

I when DC made Dick as Batman and Damien as Robin....

Same here. Also, I hate Damien's character. IMO he's the Wesley of Batman right now, and the only reason they haven't dropped him yet is because someone either on the writing or editing staff is too emotionally attached to him to drop him. I've never liked it when Batman's had a crowded cave anyway, and Damien only makes it more crowded.

 

[Man of Steel]

You must not have read Morrison's Batman and Robin series. It is hands down the best Batman title that hit the shelves in YEARS!

I personally have not read that, but in my opinion, Miller's All Star Batman and Robin is the best Batman in years(either that or Under the Hood). Both have Robin as a main character. The all time best is The Untold Legend of The Dark Knight, which also has Robin as a major character.

 

[Yurka]

No, not really. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the logic here. Gordon had his own, Batman-free screentime, as did Dent, to develop their characters as well--I don't see why affording Robin the same is suddenly unacceptable. Really, Batman's going to have plenty of screentime either way, and the time he's off screen is still going to inform his story, anyway.

Im just used to reading and watching Gordon and Dent hold their own I guess. With Robin it seems like hes always grasping at Batman's cape-tails. I guess Im just using the current Bat movies as a basis and seeing another masked vigilante who's on Batman's side and Batman takes responsibility for, seems like it would come out of left field.

As for condescension, I'm sorry--I'm not trying to insult you, but I think what you wrote was simplistic, and so I said so. That's what I always do, in every conversation.

Fair enough.

When Aliens was written, you can probably guarantee that nobody said "You know what this movie needs? A ten year old girl! That'll put butts in seats." Newt wasn't just some random character that was in the movie for no reason. She was there because the writers wanted to put Ripley through a specific character arc that could only be accomplished by giving her someone to care for. Hence, Newt. Now, I'm not using Newt as an example because she's a child--really, the characters aren't comparable that way--I'm using her as an example because, without Newt, the intended goals of the plot fall apart. They didn't need to write a movie like that; they didn't need to write a movie that put Ripley through that arc, but they chose to, and because that's what they chose to do, Newt became necessary.

Im fine with supporting characters to advance stories (who wouldnt be). Newt was perfect for Aliens, but as Aliens came out before my time and I believe she was a completely brand new character, it would be easier to simply right her into a story. I guess when a known character comes onto the screen that youve read numerous stories about and know many of the reasons as to what makes them tick, you kind of instantly and subconsciously have expectations about the character.

Equally, if you put Robin in a movie, it's because he's necessary to accomplish your goals for the story and for the character of Bruce Wayne. So, whenever someone says "He's not necessary," well, I say welcome to fiction: nothing in the story is necessary until the writer makes it necessary.

Of course. No sane writer will just shoe-horn in a character for the hell of it, usually. (Raimi ) I understand that especially Nolan and company only include characters to advance stories, but I guess my argument was at this stage, what could Robin bring story wise that someone else couldnt, say Catwoman. I've using these films as a basis so I guess its irrelevant.

Because that's what creativity is? The franchise is "fine" without Catwoman or Bane, too. A creator wants to bring things to the next level, to improve, progress, and expand them. It seems absolutely natural that one of the first items to discuss would be Robin, who has been so integral to such growth for the character in the comics. Clearly they've decided that's not a direction they wish to go, but I hope they at least discussed it seriously, first. I think it would be irresponsible not to.

I guess I've grown accustomed to picking up a random Batman trade and seeing Batman battle a different enemy every time. To me, the idea that there is someone else in the world similar to Batman (granted he had a hand in "creating" him") completely de-mystifies the character. I've always imagined and probably always will imagine him as an intimidating, tormented anti-social loner, I think its what makes the character so unique and compelling. So when a teenage kid who he's responsible for is included in the story, it just doesnt seem like the same Batman I love. (Unless Frank Millers involved )

I can only refer you to my previous statement; if they knew what they wanted, they wouldn't be the audience. Don't mistake me: I think it's perfectly fair if you or someone else doesn't want Robin in this iteration of the franchise--I just acknowledge that for what it is, not something that should inform the creative decisions.

I have no doubt that there are great writers out there who could create a fantastic story for Batman and Robin in the future. But with what we already know about Rises, and who's in it, I think Robin would add clutter.

 

[Yurka]

Are there great JL stories? Yes.
Could they be adapted directly on film. Yes.
Therefore good team stories exist and can be made into films. We just havent had a lot so far and you just prefer loner Batman. It has nothing to do with a hero stealing another's thunder which you made out to be some sort of rule.

Of course there are great JL stories, as well as Avengers, X-men etc. Its when you try to turn those stories into 2 hour movies that I believe you encounter problems (Watchmen). In print, I guess you have as much time as you need to tell a story, so its hard to translate a great long story with multiple characters onto the screen. I never tried to make that sound like a "rule", I was just making a point

The is no definitive Batman. Every interpretation is valid, but if you wanna go with canon, then no, the canon Batman currently had a Robin, a Batgirl, a Red Robin and another Batman in his family, and is currently recruiting more Batman across the globe.

To me though, Batman can exist without all those people. He can be a person whose parents were murdered so he vows to make criminals pay, while still trying to cope with his massive loss. Thats the heart of the character for me.

I like to think that my penis is 2 metres long but its not.

Speak for yourself

Spoiler

Therefore the narrative of a Batman and Robin story can be solid.

Of course it could work with the proper talent, but its not necessarily a Batman story I'd want to see, thats where my whole argument came from as to Robin diluting his character. With Batman alone, you get pure, unfiltered, Batman vs. The World for a couple hours. Batman having a teenage accomplice seems like it steers away from the soul of the character and thus "dilutes" what I believe to be the true Batman.

 

[Yurka]

Robin can't really be blamed for his being like that, though. Sure, Robin does bring out a paternal side in him, but he's not always that warm with any of the Robins, and he can be that warm even when they aren't present. Even Nolan's showed signs of sentimentality when he was arguing with Ra's al Ghul or the Joker about the innate goodness of the Gothamites, or when he gave his little speech duet with Gordon at the end of TDK. Keaton's Batman also had his little moments of humanity, though they were mostly displayed in Batman Returns. If he were the bat-ass 100% of the time, people would lose interest in him because they wouldn't be able to relate to him.

Spoiler

Btw, Robin doesn't appear in the comic these panels are taken from. Just thought I'd put that out there.

I have no problems with Batman being sympathetic, sentimental or showing humanity, he should absolutely be like that. His emotional roller-coasters are what make him a great character. One of my favorite scenes in DK was when he breaks down in front of Alfred. Like you said though, its his relationship with Robin and the Bat family that irritates me.

 

[Saint]

Im just used to reading and watching Gordon and Dent hold their own I guess. With Robin it seems like hes always grasping at Batman's cape-tails. I guess Im just using the current Bat movies as a basis and seeing another masked vigilante who's on Batman's side and Batman takes responsibility for, seems like it would come out of left field.

Well, suffice to say i think a Nolan Robin would not have the same role as the one we see in the comics.

Of course. No sane writer will just shoe-horn in a character for the hell of it, usually. (Raimi ) I understand that especially Nolan and company only include characters to advance stories, but I guess my argument was at this stage, what could Robin bring story wise that someone else couldnt, say Catwoman. I've using these films as a basis so I guess its irrelevant.

Well, the relationship between Batman and Catwoman is a very different one than the one between Batman and Robin--sufficiently different that they can both exist without being redundant. However, introducing them in the same story is probably not the best idea.

I guess I've grown accustomed to picking up a random Batman trade and seeing Batman battle a different enemy every time. To me, the idea that there is someone else in the world similar to Batman (granted he had a hand in "creating" him") completely de-mystifies the character. I've always imagined and probably always will imagine him as an intimidating, tormented anti-social loner, I think its what makes the character so unique and compelling. So when a teenage kid who he's responsible for is included in the story, it just doesnt seem like the same Batman I love. (Unless Frank Millers involved )

Though he appears, superficially, a loner, I find that if you take away the surrogate family you lose much of what makes him Batman. We can argue about which individuals are most important to that concern, but I consider Robin to be critical, and I'll leave it at that.

I have no doubt that there are great writers out there who could create a fantastic story for Batman and Robin in the future. But with what we already know about Rises, and who's in it, I think Robin would add clutter.

I maintain that it could be done, though not necessarily that it should be. I'm sure they have their idea for the story and you can't just go shoe-horning characters into that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Same here. Also, I hate Damien's character. IMO he's the Wesley of Batman right now, and the only reason they haven't dropped him yet is because someone either on the writing or editing staff is too emotionally attached to him to drop him.

"I dont like a character therefore i am sure that no one else does, DC is forcing him down on us. Never mind that B&R was a best seller."

I expected more from you Timstuff.

I've never liked it when Batman's had a crowded cave anyway, and Damien only makes it more crowded.

Tim has left to be on his own anyway and Bruce is running around the world so it's really just Dick and Damian in their bunker. Besides even back in the day where they all lived in the cave, the story would only show the characters involved. If it was a B&R story you would just see Bruce and Tim. There wouldnt be a scene where Cass is walking around the cave doing her business.

"Hey Cass, how you doing?"
"Fine and you?"
"Just working on our case."

They would conventiently ignore other characters.

Of course there are great JL stories, as well as Avengers, X-men etc. Its when you try to turn those stories into 2 hour movies that I believe you encounter problems (Watchmen). In print, I guess you have as much time as you need to tell a story, so its hard to translate a great long story with multiple characters onto the screen. I never tried to make that sound like a "rule", I was just making a point

1) What was wrong with Watchmen?
2) We re not talking about a big team here, we re only talking about Batman getting a pupil. Cant you see that it would be all about him and how he deals with all the new issues a kid would bring?

To me though, Batman can exist without all those people. He can be a person whose parents were murdered so he vows to make criminals pay, while still trying to cope with his massive loss. Thats the heart of the character for me.

Like you said, that's your version of Batman.

Speak for yourself

Spoiler

Of course it could work with the proper talent, but its not necessarily a Batman story I'd want to see, thats where my whole argument came from as to Robin diluting his character. With Batman alone, you get pure, unfiltered, Batman vs. The World for a couple hours. Batman having a teenage accomplice seems like it steers away from the soul of the character and thus "dilutes" what I believe to be the true Batman.

I get you now. You dont think that he dilutes the story, he dilutes the loner batman that you prefer.

 

[ironwez20]

I dont think he will add robin but it would be nice to hear a mention of dick grayson or atleast see dick grayson. Robin is an awesome character and has a very good story behind it, some may view him as campy but they havent seen the third robin nor have they seen TT robin, hell even this new young justice robin is awesome. Just becuase some idiot ruined the robin character in one movie doesnt mean that he's a bad character, robin should atleast make a damn cameo.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Theres a difference between leaning on people for support and literally actually never being alone. I agree Batman always has or needs someone to turn to, and I think Catwoman/Selina will fill the gap left by Rachel in this.





I wouldnt like it, but I would accept it.

The quote works better with the right now bit. Because then people remember the whole "Dick was fighting crime by Bruce's side for over nearly twenty years and then when he was presumed dead by the entire universe he took up the mantle of Batman".

I suppose I should have put he's not "just" another Batman.

But thanks for pointing that out instead of responding to most of the post


And why don't people like Damian? He's a superb character and work so well with Dick's character.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Well, suffice to say I think a Nolan Robin would not have the same role as the one we see in the comics.

I don't get why people think this.

 

[Changeling]

I could see if they got Robin in an Oracle type role...
It would still be the regular origin story, Bruce witnesses Dick's parents' death and decides to take him in, Dick starts to notice how Bruce is never home, and starts snooping around and eventually finds out Bruce is Batman. He tells Batman that he wants to help, but Bruce refuses to put him in danger, but Dick insists he wants/needs to help, and eventually Bruce gives in and lets him operate from the Batcave, and Dick sends Bruce information about whatever mission Bats is on and information about villains and stuff, Dick could use the codename "Robin" just so if someone intercepts the signal between the two, they wouldn't know who Robin is.

 

[Secret Fawful]

BTW to people who say that Batman letting Robin fight in the field would be child abuse, keep in mind Batman operates outside of the law and above normal moral boundaries. If he thinks a Robin is proven and able to fight crime, then it's his decision, and you shouldn't expect yourself or the audience to agree with every decision Batman makes, especially when everyone in the comics rarely does. Fact: Robin has died before. It is a risk. If you consider Batman a child abuser for it, then that's just one of a million decisions everyone gets on his back about anyway.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

And Dick usually makes sure Bruce knows he's gonna go do hid thang with or without Bruce. So would it be better to let him go alone or with him?

 

[Yurka]

They would conventiently ignore other characters.
1) What was wrong with Watchmen?
2) We re not talking about a big team here, we re only talking about Batman getting a pupil.

Much of what made Watchmen (the novel) great was how in depth and rich the character arcs were. Alan moore was able to say "Im gonna need this many issues to tell this story", translating that to a movie where youre only allotted 2 and a half hours makes it difficult to make every character as compelling as they were in the book. Thats all. Granted Batman & Robin isnt quite the ensemble team that Watchmen had, but with Robin you'd have to bring in another heroes storyline, and I just wouldnt prefer that in a Batman film.

I get you now. You dont think that he dilutes the story, he dilutes the loner batman that you prefer.

I guess it could go both ways in my opinion, with Robin involved he takes away parts of a story from Batman, and he also makes Batman a more compassionate and fatherly interpretation which I dont believe to be the true character.

The quote works better with the right now bit. Because then people remember the whole "Dick was fighting crime by Bruce's side for over nearly twenty years and then when he was presumed dead by the entire universe he took up the mantle of Batman".

I suppose I should have put he's not "just" another Batman.

I was just messing with you, sorry.

But thanks for pointing that out instead of responding to most of the post

I've addressed the points you've made multiple times throughout the (long) course of this thread.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Much of what made Watchmen (the novel) great was how in depth and rich the character arcs were. Alan moore was able to say "Im gonna need this many issues to tell this story", translating that to a movie where youre only allotted 2 and a half hours makes it difficult to make every character as compelling as they were in the book.

But the movie was 98% like the graphic novel. Snyder almost adapted it page by page. Maybe some things were lost there, but definitely not much.

I guess it could go both ways in my opinion, with Robin involved he takes away parts of a story from Batman, and he also makes Batman a more compassionate and fatherly interpretation

Who said anything about being compassionate and fatherly. Depending on the era Batman has varied from the greatest dad in the world to the biggest ***hole ever. Likewise in the movie he could be a strict mentor and not "the best father ever".

which I dont believe to be the true character.

You still dont get that thoughout his 70 years of history batman has had every possible interpretation, all of which are valid. From lighthearted crime fighter fighting on huge piano strings, to grimdark detective, to space trooper.

 

[Yurka]

Who said anything about being compassionate and fatherly. Depending on the era Batman has varied from the greatest dad in the world to the biggest ***hole ever. Likewise in the movie he could be a strict mentor and not "the best father ever".

We were discussing Batman with and without Robin up above, thats where it came from. With Robin being involved he would almost certainly be more compassionate and "fatherly"

You still dont get that thoughout his 70 years of history batman has had every possible interpretation, all of which are valid. From lighthearted crime fighter fighting on huge piano strings, to grimdark detective, to space trooper.

No I get it. Its just that that interpretation to me, would seem out of place in Nolans franchise. Again, a Robin story could work at some point, but at this stage and with Nolan's themes, it wont happen. I have no doubt we'll see Robin again, just not with Nolan because that doesnt seem like what he's going for at all.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Bruce wouldn't neccesarrily become fatherly. In a canonical recount of Robin's origin Batman kidnaps Dick, punches him out of shock and forces him to choose between eating rats or dying. In a more fatherly story Bruce blames Dick that he got kicked out by Bruce, blamed him for Jason's death, beat him up and then left him crying alone in the batcave.

Does every character, even Bruce, that's not Batman dilute the story? Should the film be The Dark Knight pummels?

 

[RustyCage]

I like Two-Face as Batman better.

Spoiler

I can't believe they still employ ideas like this.

 

[Yurka]

Bruce wouldn't neccesarrily become fatherly. In a canonical recount of Robin's origin Batman kidnaps Dick, punches him out of shock and forces him to choose between eating rats or dying. In a more fatherly story Bruce blames Dick that he got kicked out by Bruce, blamed him for Jason's death, beat him up and then left him crying alone in the batcave.

Does every character, even Bruce, that's not Batman dilute the story? Should the film be The Dark Knight pummels?

All-Star Batman and Robin I think we can all agree, was over-the-top in many ways, not bad, but there are many moments when you think What is Miller doing here???

Of course not, as I've said repeatedly, IMO the only characters that weaken or dilute Batman's story are his Bat-family, (not including Alfred).

 

[regwec]

It never happened.

 

[Mr. Earle]

We were discussing Batman with and without Robin up above, thats where it came from. With Robin being involved he would almost certainly be more compassionate and "fatherly"

Or not. Miller's All Star Batman has Robin locked in the cave and forced to catch rats and eat them for some reason. But even in cannon comics Batman has been harsh on Dick, sometimes even kicking him to the curb because he broke his rules or whatever.

Look, this Batman isnt really that grimdark anyway, he might be rather sad but he has his moments with Alfred and Fox, so i doubt it would be much of a change.