The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!!

[Two-Face]

He is an essential part Of the comic mythos. You may as well argue that because Two-Face wasn’t treated properly in BF, that he isn’t essential. He has been in the comics since 1940. You may not like him (and believe me, I HATE the pixie boots Dick Grayson costume, it just makes no sense), but he is a cornerstone of the mythos and I for one would love to see him being done properly on film.

Not in a Nolan film.

 

[CaptainClown]

Yes... I will argue that... Because a character is IMPORTANT, does not make him essential to the mythos. What is important is the death of Bruce Wayne' parents, Bruce Wayne himself and maybe even Alfred. Aside from that everything else can be included or not and a solid Batman story can be told. Yes he is very important to some stories at least, however he is not ESSENTIAL. Essential means it can't function without it, and Batman clearly can survive without Robin at all.

 

[itsthebatman]

Not in a Nolan film.

Why not? Why are we so limited? Do you think Nolan limits himself this way?

 

[CaptainClown]

limitations are a great source of creativity, freedom hinders creativity

 

[itsthebatman]

Yes... I will argue that... Because a character is IMPORTANT, does not make him essential to the mythos. What is important is the death of Bruce Wayne' parents, Bruce Wayne himself and maybe even Alfred. Aside from that everything else can be included or not and a solid Batman story can be told. Yes he is very important to some stories at least, however he is not ESSENTIAL. Essential means it can't function without it, and Batman clearly can survive without Robin at all.

Well then the question is not whether Robin can work or not, but whether people want to see him on screen. I still argue that he is a necessary component of the comics Batman, as without Dick, Jason and Tim, Bruce is a very different character. Early in his career, Bruce realised he could not continue the war on crime by himself, or that it would consume him. He needs a partner. So, as a fan of Robin (when done well), I would like to see him done justice on screen.

 

[itsthebatman]

limitations are a great source of creativity, freedom hinders creativity

So having a limited imagination (in this case, unable to accept the presence of a teenaged vigilante) is somehow a boost to creativity? Right. Lets not pretend that this is anything other than that many Batfans do not LIKE Robin.
Personally, I think it would be a great test of creativity to include Robin in this series, because if he pulled it off in a way that fans accepted, it would be a coup.

 

[CaptainClown]

Well then the question is not whether Robin can work or not, but whether people want to see him on screen. I still argue that he is a necessary component of the comics Batman, as without Dick, Jason and Tim, Bruce is a very different character. Early in his career, Bruce realised he could not continue the war on crime by himself, or that it would consume him. He needs a partner. So, as a fan of Robin (when done well), I would like to see him done justice on screen.

Well there is still the idea of "if robin can work" because it is combined with if people would want to see him. Unfortunately the traditional Robin really stretches peoples belief, and most people would not be accepting of that within the series.

Also you are arguing from a comic stand point, defending the lore and citing that character. You have to look at it from the character created in the Nolan series. Rachel Dawes wasn't lore in comics but very important to Bruce in the series. It is a completely different set of canon, and you cannot use the comics as a source because it clearly does not follow the comics that much. The movies are a different beast then the comics, and the canon of comics is not the canon of the films.

 

[CaptainClown]

So having a limited imagination (in this case, unable to accept the presence of a teenaged vigilante) is somehow a boost to creativity? Right. Lets not pretend that this is anything other than that many Batfans do not LIKE Robin.
Personally, I think it would be a great test of creativity to include Robin in this series, because if he pulled it off in a way that fans accepted, it would be a coup.

you misread me. I will explain it like this then. The nolan series has created a limitation where the character of Batman is not within a world where the unimaginable can happen. This is a limitation, that limitation brings out creativity with 1. Rahs and immortality 2. Scarecrow and costume 3. Jokerization and so on and so forth. These limitations brought about a new creative perspective on revamping an old idea.

Avatar, The new Star Wars, The New Indiana Jones. are examples of free reign creativity. Because you can do it doesn't make it good. Free reign has seldom ever produced something that is very good. What you are saying is that it is creative to include an element of Batman to prove you can do it. However that doesn't necessarily delivery the best product.

 

[itsthebatman]

Fine. But as comics fans don't we want to see substantial elements of the comics translated to screen? Are you arguing that Robin CAN'T work, in this series, or arguing that you don't want him? If your point is that you can't see him working in this series, I think we're selling the Nolans short.

 

[CaptainClown]

Fine. But as comics fans don't we want to see substantial elements of the comics translated to screen? Are you arguing that Robin CAN'T work, in this series, or arguing that you don't want him? If your point is that you can't see him working in this series, I think we're selling the Nolans short.

I am not saying either.

Also as a comic fan I do not want to see everything of 'importance' put onto film. I do not want to see the Hush story line put onto film. I do not want to see Azreal. I do not want to so many elements from the comics translated to the screen. It is not because they are necessarily bad, but I like the course of the Nolan series and how it has developed its own mythos naturally. I would rather have that then forcing it to include certain points unnaturally.

As for Robin, Robin I am sure can work if this series stretched to a 7th movie. I do not feel that the story calls for Robin and including him would require a developed universe in order to maintain interest. however the universe developed is still evolving and I and others would rather see a riddler, penguin, catwoman, black mask, ventriloquist etc. before the inclusion of robin.

 

[raybia]

I think an argument can be made for and against Robin. The only way to know if Robin was to work is if Nolan includes the character. Then of course it would come down to Nolan's interpretation of the character. If it works, Nolan is praised by many who want Robin, unless of course his interpretation is far removed from the comic book interpretation.

If Nolan's interpretation of Robin fails, then fans won't admit its because of the character but rather Nolan's interpretation.

In other words if the inclusion of Dick Grayson/Robin fails in Nolan's next movie, it will be Nolan's fault among the fans who want the character.

With that said and based on comments previously stated by Nolan, I think there is 99% chance of Dick Grayson/Robin not appearing. Nolan once said during the making of BB that Grayson is still in the cradle. Well, base on the timeline of events starting in BB and ending in TDK, Grayson still would not be old enough to appear in the 3rd movie...unless it jumps ahead by 10+ years from the end of TDK.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Well then the question is not whether Robin can work or not, but whether people want to see him on screen.

There's a poll for that, so... I don't think it's a question. The problem is that people do not form judgment out of nothing. There's always a reason, not always a conscious one, but a reason nonetheless.

Lets not pretend that this is anything other than that many Batfans do not LIKE Robin.

Totally.

I still argue that he is a necessary component of the comics Batman, as without Dick, Jason and Tim, Bruce is a very different character.

Maybe that's the reason.


About limits and creativity, you don't know how much I agree with you, CaptainClown. Sacred cow of screenwriting Robert McKee says about this:

"Limitations happen to be vital. The first step one must take to tell a story well is to create a recognizable world. By nature artists worship freedom, so the principle establishing that the relationship between structure and setting restricts our creative options can wake the rebel within them. Nevertheless, if we analyze it at a greater length, we will come to the conclusion that this relationship couldn't be more positive: the limitations imposed in the narrative design by the setting do not inhibit out creativity, they inspire it."

Limitations actually make an artist struggle and get to a point where the solution is less predictable and more impacting, while also allowing to keep a tight and consistent 'bigger picture'. So, if Robin's sole purpose in the story is to "humanize" Bruce, it would be fitting to have another character with other purposes in the story to do that. I've seen Bruce get in touch with his more human side many times and not all of them have included Robin. Rachel, for example, was a great way of humanizing him ("WHERE ARE THEY?", "I don't have the luxury of friends.").

And she ALSO affected more than one character in TDK, thus guaranteeing her role in the story. Gordon did that too, he came to represent a whole force that played an essential role in the outcome of the story (the police and the corruption he didn't acknowledge), and had personal bindings with a character like Dent, or a very special scene with the Joker. Afred and Fox were also more engrossing than usual in Begins. Heck, even all the villains were interconnected in both movies.

Robin... in these series... at this moment, for me, is bound to have that ineffable "free electron" flaw... that lack of traits that makes him disposable because he only affects Bruce individually in only one sense. He becomes the center of his own secondary story and takes away from Bruce more than what he gives to him.

You want someone to humanize Bruce? Have Selina do it. Granted, she will do it in her very special ways, but she can do it anyway while also being a love-interest, an ally/antagonist, and having strong relationships to other characters in the story (i.e. Alfred, Gordon, Fox, the other big villains, etc.). All around, it's a more synthesizing and tight choice.

... And all that came from the limitation of not having Robin in the sequel.

 

[Wams]

Not much of a fair statement in the least. I'm not a fan of excluding the more fantastical elements of the mythos either, but Nolan has stuck to a particular lane that suits his interests and talents. One that does honor a fairly large aspect of the Batman lore.

Would you rather he cater to fans' every desire, at the risk of the final product? If Nolan didn't give a damn about the genre, he wouldn't have sought out this character and put a significant amount of care to both films.

Nowlan's Batman is fine for what it is...But it's not the full potential of what we know Batman and his world could and should be.


Im just sayin...

 

[GaiusBaltar]

^ No film adaptation will ever be that.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

^ No film adaptation will ever be that.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

If I were a policeman, I would just guess Batman loses his cool when there's an innocent woman involved. That Batman is just priorizing the woman in jeopardy. He wouldn't have the lady's death on his conscience and it's just letting the brave Dent expect the police help. What's strage about that? That he says her first name? Enraged, in the middle of a stressful situation? Maybe he was just being condescending, referring to her by her first name. Bruce's strong bond to Rachel Dawes is not that public, anyway. If instead of "rachel" Batman would've shouted "HARVEY!", do you think the police would have thought he and Dent were close friends?

Not buying it.

The Joker was in the city for just a few days and he made the connection that Batman had feelings for Rachel.

Everyone in Gotham knows that Wayne and Rachel are childhood friends and possibly more.

At the interrogation Batman refers to Harvey as "Dent". Anyone with a clue can see that once The Joker mentions "I thought you really were Dent the way you THREW yourself after her", that Batman loses it, and rightfully so.

It's not "real" that Gotham Police and the city are incompetent to Batman's identity. Gordon of all people should know this considering he's known Batman the longest (he may very well which should give reason that others should also).

Remember in Batman Begins? Who was the first person Batman (well an early version of Batman anyway) brings up? Rachel Dawes. The GPD and Gotham could definitely make the connection that "oh, Rachel Dawes is the childhood friend of Bruce Wayne and, what's this, Batman has a thing for her too?".

By responding "RACHEL!" instead of "I'm going after Ms. Dawes" in front of the GPD just opens up a huge can of worms.

It's perfectly normal too. That's Waynes love interest and childhood friend, but don't try to make it sound like everyone in Gotham would be oblivious to it and saying that their incompetence in doing so is "realistic".

I know these weren't directed at me but I'd like to take a shot at answering them.

You certainly took a shot alright. I hate seeing people tear into other people's post with one quote after another, I don't even know how you find the time to do it. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find it annoying.

You're possibly right about the other things (League of Shadows code, High Society etc.) but the simple fact that Bruce Wayne "came back from the dead" after all those years and then a few days/weeks/months BATMAN shows up and no one notices proves my argument.

I want some grounded realism sure but some of you guys make it seem like everything Nolan does "could happen" when it clearly couldn't. None of these movies are "realistic" and they most certainly wouldn't happen, or could happen in "real life".

Let it be known that I still enjoy the films (Begins and TDK the most) but I refuse to accept it as flawless in terms of reasoning.

If Bruce Wayne can show up after years of absence then come into the spotlight as Batman without anyone noticing, then he can clean up his playboy act, adopt a child and train him to be a crimefighter like himself a few years down the line without anyone catching on.

"Suspension of disbelief." All I'm saying is eventually give Robin the chance Batman, The Joker, Alfred, Scarecrow, Ras, Gordon, and Dent/Two-Face got in Nolan's films, maybe after Catwoman, Riddler, Penguin etc.

It could work and with Nolan it would work well. Again I'm not a "ROBIN ADVOCATE" and I think both side are being silly (NO ROBEN, HE SUCKS vs. WE NEED ROBIN, I LUV HIM!). I'm just trying to being rational here without getting my opinion thrown into the mix.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

The Joker was in the city for just a few days and he made the connection that Batman had feelings for Rachel.

The Joker made a lot of things in just a few days. What can I say? It doesn't blow his alibi. The first person the Joker thought was Dent, and then had also confessed being the Batman. His cover was about to be blown, in the same way he almost dies, but he it didn't. What I find relevant is that it doesn't deny their established 'motives'.

Gordon and the Joker still don't want to know Batman's identity, and they act in consequence... improbabilities aside. But the current Batman taking under an kid side-kick in his current situation, well, that would like betraying his esablished principles and goals, wouldn't it? After all "he doesn't need any help" and wouldn't want a kid to go through what he's going through. But I digress...

Everyone in Gotham knows that Wayne and Rachel are childhood friends and possibly more.

You get that from... ?

You certainly took a shot alright. I hate seeing people tear into other people's post with one quote after another, I don't even know how you find the time to do it. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find it annoying.

Sorry for the annoyance, you're not obligated to reply in this particular discussion if you want, just let me know. Actualy, I've found that multi-quoting is much better and quickier for me to reply. I don'teven check the spelling, so you may find typos here and there. I'm on holidays and the cold keeps me inside so I'm on the internet a lot.

You're possibly right about the other things (League of Shadows code, High Society etc.) but the simple fact that Bruce Wayne "came back from the dead" after all those years and then a few days/weeks/months BATMAN shows up and no one notices proves my argument.

This I agree with. It's undeniable. But I've lost track of what this is supposed to mean. Is it that one (or two, or three) cases of suspension of disbelief validate any kind of intervention on the story right now? I'm not so sure. If anything, these things should continue to be kept under control, at least when they threaten other parts of the story (see above: motives and principles).

I want some grounded realism sure but some of you guys make it seem like everything Nolan does "could happen" when it clearly couldn't. None of these movies are "realistic" and they most certainly wouldn't happen, or could happen in "real life".

I don't. I was just replying to your questions. For me, not introducing Robin right now is a matter of not betraying the Bruce's current stage of character development. And that level of verisimilitude actually works well for Nolan's vision. He cannot keep it 100% but taking a wild turn is actually worse. It's not the same people no finding out who Batman because his alibis are good (or cuz' they're really stupid) as him letting a young kid put his life on the line because he needs help (he wouldn't admit it). The latter actually has much more impact on the story.

"Suspension of disbelief." All I'm saying is eventually give Robin the chance Batman, The Joker, Alfred, Scarecrow, Ras, Gordon, and Dent/Two-Face got in Nolan's films, maybe after Catwoman, Riddler, Penguin etc.

And I agree with this. I just hope it will be after Nolan's done for and the series makes the inevitable change of direction, slight or radical, that comes with the change of director.

Nolan would probably be done for after one more film, so... no big dea. Just not in B3.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

Gordon and the Joker still don't want to know Batman's identity, and they act in consequence... improbabilities aside. But the current Batman taking under an kid side-kick in his current situation, well, that would like betraying his esablished principles and goals, wouldn't it? After all "he doesn't need any help" and wouldn't want a kid to go through what he's going through. But I digress...

I agree. It's obvious to me that Joker probably knows and that Gordon more or less has an idea.

Still, Reese came to the conclusion just by going over a few records. His automatic response was that BRUCE WAYNE was indeed Batman, not some other employee. The point is, other gothamites could put this together pretty quickly.

You look at Wayne's traumatic background and he's the only one in Gotham that could be Batman.

You get that from... ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36sCq-VKO0c

Though you'll probably just say that it's not canon, and you know what, if you do I agree. When I tried to express this notion I was always outed by people with the claim that, "Nolan and John had a helping hand in the promotional material for The Dark Knight so Gotham Tonight is as valid as any".

Mind you they were usually supporters of realism, those commonly against the idea of characters such as Robin to a less extreme and the likes of Clayface, Man-Bat, Killer Croc to an extreme.

Considering most people have this view in this particular discussion I thought I'd finally go off Gotham Tonight as a source for an argument "which is valid as annnnnnyyyy".

If you and me or anyone else on here for that matter only knew Batman, Bruce Wayne and the rest of the citizens of Gotham City as single entities (much like Batman's first comic appearance before the end), I'm sure that we could all agree that Wayne would most likely be Batman.

Sorry for the annoyance, you're not obligated to reply in this particular discussion if you want, just let me know. Actualy, I've found that multi-quoting is much better and quickier for me to reply. I don'teven check the spelling, so you may find typos here and there. I'm on holidays and the cold keeps me inside so I'm on the internet a lot.

Nevermind, I was just in a *****y mood. Nothing like waking up before work and seeing your argument picked at, amirite?

Your opinions and preferences are just as valid as mine.

For me, not introducing Robin right now is a matter of not betraying the Bruce's current stage of character development. And that level of verisimilitude actually works well for Nolan's vision. He cannot keep it 100% but taking a wild turn is actually worse. It's not the same people no finding out who Batman because his alibis are good (or cuz' they're really stupid) as him letting a young kid put his life on the line because he needs help (he wouldn't admit it). The latter actually has much more impact on the story.

I agree with you on Bruce's current stage of development but there's going to be a time where it gets bland in terms of storytelling and the Grayson or Robin story will have/want to be told.

The "next one" might not be a good time for that but there are people here (and there are many) that suggest it should NEVER be done. That's what annoys me.

I wouldn't care if Robin is never seen on screen again just don't have people tell me, with their opinions no less, that it shouldn't be done EVER and CANNOT happen.

You portray Grayson's loss similar to Wayne's and I guarentee it would be a hit.

Is it wrong to have Wayne adopt a child and IMMEDIATELY throw him into combat, yes. I doubt the current film Batman would do such a thing.

But is it wrong to have that third part of Wayne's personality (playboy, Batman, REAL Wayne) to show through to the public and act more responsible in terms of character and his business commitments? Then to adopt a child that has had his parents taken from them and to train him LATER (years later) to take up a similar mantle? No. Especially if the child seeks revenge, much like Wayne.

I'm all for Dick Grayson as the child, and Robin/Nightwing as the adult. Not Robin, middle school student.

That's all.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I agree with everything there. If you ask me, Bruce should meet a 14 year old Dick Grayson who's just too eager and motivated to step him aside. And, as Bruce got "bland", like you say, he will reluctantly oblige... to send him to training abroad (and regular school) during seven years, until he's 21. All that before he sees any field action. That or no dice.
But of course, you cannot do that in just one film, especially one that could take place inmediatly after TDK. Leave it to post-Nolan directors so they can establish new themes, settings and narrative flows. That should do it.

 

[Brother Jack]

I agree. It's obvious to me that Joker probably knows and that Gordon more or less has an idea.

I think it's fairly obvious that Gordon doesn't have a clue that Bruce is Batman, the scene with him and Bruce after the car accident is evidence of that. It is somewhat possible that Joker knows, but like you said I don't think he wants to know. His plan to get Batman to unmask himself was not done because he wanted to know who Batman is, but just because it would unravel the social structure of Gotham. The idea of a selfless hero does not fit in to the Joker's world-view.

 

[The Joker]

It's been hinted at in the comics that Joker knows Bruce Wayne is Batman, too.

 

[tekken]

the only logical story i see happening after TDK is "Dark Victory."

batman begins mirrored batman: year one, and the dark knight mirrored the long halloween. it only makes sense to make this next one like dark victory.

by the end of the dark knight, batman felt responsible for harvey dent's fall. to the point he put all the blame on himself. while this is super cool and all, no one man can handle that kind of stress. there's a line in dark victory where he says "i promised to rid the evil that took my parents' lives...i realize now that this burden is mine and mine alone." with this kind of thinking, he got messy. he started to miss things here and there. once he started putting his trust in people again, and creating allies (ROBIN), things started to shape up.

dick grayson should be bats' doorway into the realization that he can't go at it alone.

 

[Two-Face]

Why? Why does he need a sidekick? I like my Batman to be tortured, alone or a loner etc. We can't have a third Batman movie without Robin for a change?

 

[RustyCage]

the only logical story i see happening after TDK is "Dark Victory."

batman begins mirrored batman: year one, and the dark knight mirrored the long halloween. it only makes sense to make this next one like dark victory.

by the end of the dark knight, batman felt responsible for harvey dent's fall. to the point he put all the blame on himself. while this is super cool and all, no one man can handle that kind of stress. there's a line in dark victory where he says "i promised to rid the evil that took my parents' lives...i realize now that this burden is mine and mine alone." with this kind of thinking, he got messy. he started to miss things here and there. once he started putting his trust in people again, and creating allies (ROBIN), things started to shape up.

dick grayson should be bats' doorway into the realization that he can't go at it alone.

That makes perfect sense with the way the story is headed, you're right. I haven't read DV, but I had given a lot of thought to where things would go in Bruce's mind after TDK, and that reflects it pretty much to a tee. I'll have to pick that book up ASAP!

I guess the question to ask based on this is 'when?'. When would Dick come into play? How much screen time should the more intense, broody Bruce get before he makes his next epiphany?

As you can see, some people don't want him to. They like the conflicted loner Batman, and it makes sense, he's awesome. But Batman's also an evolving character, he's on a journey, so.. things kind of have to move forward for him. That's gonna be a tough line to tread for Nolan as far as the fans go - and even himself, since he doesn't seem too steady with these ideas just yet.

 

[terry78]

The theme over most of the years of the Bat-books and Bat-cartoons and whatever has alawys been even though Wayne feels he can and should go it alone all the time, more often than not he does need a kindred spirit.