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

[kmrbeckman]

MJ: "Ignorant...that's just ignorant...you're ignorant!"

 

[El Payaso]

First of all to everybody else he got drunk on his birthday and burned his house down once. it has been a while since then, there's no proof that bruce still gets drunk all the time because he doesnt.

There were proof that he was drunk and burnt his house on his birthday and he actually wasn't and didn't respectively, go figure.

You seem to forget the big act Bruce has been doing as a shallow unpredictable playboy for years now. No matter if he has tayed sober for a while, with that past and being still single (unable to commit to marriage) he's far from elegible for adoptive father.

Being sober for a while after that past is far from being absolutely redeeming.

Second there's no reason y he cant proof he is responsible enough to raise a child on his own.

He has shown repeatedly an unpredictable erratic behaviour as an adult. That means that unless he shows REAL evidence of being different he could be thought of having another outburst for no reason (as his previous outburst have had no reason).

There's plenty of evidence that he's not responsible enough.

And he remain single, why would anyonme think he's actually interested in giving the child a normal life and family?

when i said someone like bruce i didnt actually mean bruce. he sees himself in dick and thats what made him want to help him.

Bruce sees himself in every innocent decent person. That's why he became Batman.

For the umpteenth time: if Bruce is interested in orphans, he better open an orphanage. He can't go picking every kid whose parents were killed.

Any judge that wouldnt be willing to give somebody even with bruce's past a second chance when bruce can honestly say that he has changed. Its not that hard to believe

Well, lousy judges are everywhere I suppose.

that said, any judge with the minimum of common sense could see that there are lots of caring normal families before a single billionaire who refuses to commit to marriage and has a alcoholic erratic behaviour record.

 

[El Payaso]

MJ: "Ignorant...that's just ignorant...you're ignorant!"

Bruce Wayne could be seen saying that to the judge.

And if Batman were to be seen risking a minor life, then he wouldn't need to blame himself for 5 murders in order to be legally chased and prosecuted.

 

[cin0]

There were proof that he was drunk and burnt his house on his birthday and he actually wasn't and didn't respectively, go figure.

You seem to forget the big act Bruce has been doing as a shallow unpredictable playboy for years now. No matter if he has tayed sober for a while, with that past and being still single (unable to commit to marriage) he's far from elegible for adoptive father.

Being sober for a while after that past is far from being absolutely redeeming.



He has shown repeatedly an unpredictable erratic behaviour as an adult. That means that unless he shows REAL evidence of being different he could be thought of having another outburst for no reason (as his previous outburst have had no reason).

There's plenty of evidence that he's not responsible enough.

And he remain single, why would anyonme think he's actually interested in giving the child a normal life and family?



Bruce sees himself in every innocent decent person. That's why he became Batman.

For the umpteenth time: if Bruce is interested in orphans, he better open an orphanage. He can't go picking every kid whose parents were killed.



Well, lousy judges are everywhere I suppose.

that said, any judge with the minimum of common sense could see that there are lots of caring normal families before a single billionaire who refuses to commit to marriage and has a alcoholic erratic behaviour record.

Go ahead, keep thinkin like that. there's no reason someobody who actually CAN prove that none of the would happen if they had a child. its not like bruce is a felon or a child molestor he hasnt even been accused of anything. No judge can just take a look at someone and because of things they've done in the

PAST say that they cant adopt. If wants to adopt all he has to do is show that he's responsible enough RIGHT NOW. that's all that it should be, everyone is makin it out to be somethin it isnt. we all know bruce doesnt really get drunk all the time, we all know bruce isnt partyin 24/7, we all know that if bruce wasnt batman nobody would think this about him at all. so y wouldnt he be able to show a judge that he can take care of a child.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

^ Talk about denial.
Or better, talk to any parent struggling to adopt. The required standards are really, really high. You don't want to acknowledge that? No problem.

 

[cin0]

not denial, like ive said a thousand times stuff that went down in the past cant prevent somebody from proving that they can raise a child.it may be hard, who said that it would be easy for him but this is a movie. and no matter how realistic the movie is supposed to be and still would regardless of whether not bruce adopted a child, its still fiction. i dont see the problem with dick being adopted by bruce at all. normally wouldnt question things like that because its all fictional anyway, remeber that.

 

[CaptainClown]

Movies however try to follow a logical sequence of events. It does seem like a huge stretch to believe that any sort of court system would grant Wayne custody of a child. At the same time, how would the public interpret Wayne adopting a child. Because it is fiction won't stop us from asking questions. If you don't ask questions then movies like Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider should be just as amazing as TDK. TDK recevived a lot of praise because of its attention to detail, I mean one of the sub-plots was how Reese was trying to blackmail Bruce Wayne because of the tumbler.

 

[cin0]

What ive been trying to defend was that the idea of bruce adopting dick isnt too far fetched to be put on screen and still stay true to how the story has already been put out. he could fight for it, it wouldnt be fun without some sort of huge change that people would wonder about.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

It is too far-fetched and it does stray from the current story in many aspects. You're only addressing the possibility of adoption, not even the many well-known principles of Wayne that would prevent him from taking teenage side-kick under his wing.

Unless you concur with Dr. Crane's diagnoses.

 

[cin0]

i dont see how that is when he did in the comicbooks. its not that far from it. dick is suposed to be a prodigy, the reason y he was able to fight with bruce is because he picked up on it pretty fast.

 

[El Payaso]

Go ahead, keep thinkin like that. there's no reason someobody who actually CAN prove that none of the would happen if they had a child.

Yes there is. A person's past talks by itself. In any trial any witness' past is taken into account at the moment to test his/her credibility.

Nothing in Bruce Wayne's public life support the idea that he could be a responsible father.

its not like bruce is a felon or a child molestor he hasnt even been accused of anything.

As if he were. Erratic behaviour, drunkness, pyromania. Yes, child molester is not on his list, but it could easily be... judging him by his past.

No judge can just take a look at someone and because of things they've done in the PAST say that they cant adopt.

They can do exactly that. ALL of them.

And it's not like any judge has to search deeply into Bruce's past.

If wants to adopt all he has to do is show that he's responsible enough RIGHT NOW. that's all that it should be, everyone is makin it out to be somethin it isnt.

Because it isn't.

When you have been publicly a drunk and a danger to yourself being sober the day of the trial doesn't count.

we all know bruce doesnt really get drunk all the time, we all know bruce isnt partyin 24/7, we all know that if bruce wasnt batman nobody would think this about him at all. so y wouldnt he be able to show a judge that he can take care of a child.

Oh, so all he has to do is to say "Ok judge, look, I wasn't drunk that night, didn't burn my house and I am not really a playboy nor a womanizer. I'm Batman and I have to fake all of those things." In which case I'm sure the judge would have even better reasons to deny the ptition.

not denial, like ive said a thousand times stuff that went down in the past cant prevent somebody from proving that they can raise a child.

But it perfectly can. Specially if it involves certain publicly known Bruce's life aspects.

it may be hard, who said that it would be easy for him but this is a movie. and no matter how realistic the movie is supposed to be and still would regardless of whether not bruce adopted a child, its still fiction. i dont see the problem with dick being adopted by bruce at all. normally wouldnt question things like that because its all fictional anyway, remeber that.

Ah well, if the "it's a movie" thing is going to be on my head all the time is a completely different case than the real situation plausibility.

What ive been trying to defend was that the idea of bruce adopting dick isnt too far fetched to be put on screen and still stay true to how the story has already been put out. he could fight for it, it wouldnt be fun without some sort of huge change that people would wonder about.

Yes, it could be a movie about that. That's why the Robvin character and situation is not only unbelievable but also a bad idea. Batman fights to be a dad.

 

[cin0]

Yes there is. A person's past talks by itself. In any trial any witness' past is taken into account at the moment to test his/her credibility.

Nothing in Bruce Wayne's public life support the idea that he could be a responsible father.



As if he were. Erratic behaviour, drunkness, pyromania. Yes, child molester is not on his list, but it could easuily be... if a judge allows him.



They can do exactly that. ALL of them.

And it's not like any judge has to search deeply into Bruce's past.



Because it isn't.

When you have been publicly a drunk and a danger to yourself being sober the day of the trial doesn't count.



Oh, so all he has to do is to say a"Ok judge, look, I wasn't drunk that night, didn't burn my house and I am not relly a playboy nor a womanizer. I'm Batman and I have to fake all of those things." In which case I'm sure the judge would have even better reasons to deny the ptition.











But it perfectly can. Specially if it involves certain publicly known Bruce's life aspects.



Ah well, if the "it's a movie" thing is going to be on my head all the time is a completely different case than the real situation plausibility.






Yes, it could be a movie about that. That's why the Robvin character and situation is not only unbelievable but also a bad idea. Batman fights to be a dad.

Im really gettin tired of this. all of yall need to get off my nuts. Of coarse bruce's past would be taken into account, but that doesnt me that he wouldnt even be given the chance to prove himself .

and he wouldnt just walk up to the judge and say "Ok judge, look, I wasn't drunk that night, didn't burn my house and I am not relly a playboy nor a womanizer. I'm Batman and I have to fake all of those things." But we all know that he did fake all those things, we all know he doesnt get drunk, we all know he doesnt stay out all night partying, and we all know that bruce can prove he's responsible enough, because he is. im really gettin tired of all the sarcasm as if i dont know that it would be hard for bruce to adopt but its not impossible. Everybody is completely ok with the bat-pod being apart of the tumbler and the memory cloth in his cape but bruce adopting a child is impossible. all of yall are closed minded to seeing dick even being around bruce without being an adult but ur ok with everything else he does. im sure u doint believe billionaire disapearing for 7 years coming back, reclaiming everything he owned, saving an entire city from destroying itself, and all while dressed as giant bat is possible. get outta here, im sure a genious like nolan could find some way to work it into the story and still make it believable.

 

[GlasgowBat]

only thing i'll mention.....we all have bore witness in recent years to the madonna adoption thing.....people seemingly unsuitable for parentage have been allowed to adopt in the real world.

here's a thought; turn it into a story-point. Is Bruce, in his struggle to cope with the strains placed upon his night-time activities, begun to cross lines? does he, throughout the early part of the story, begin to cross lines (minor, but important ones) so as to get the job done? maybe he adopts an "ends justifies the means" mantra of sorts. Then when he witnesses the death of the grayosns, he sees himslef in Dick.

que a neat way of returning a degree of focus on the loss of the waynes which was largely missing from TDK(understandably). as well as this, bruce feels it necessary to take in this child; maybe Dick tries to get revenge, maybe bruce is just trying to help without intending to create a sidekick, that's details for another day. the point is, Bruce decides he'll take this child in, and if it means using his fame and power to achieve a goal of noble intent, he does just that and bends the rules; hardly unlikely in Gotham, and hardly out of Wayne's reach.

thus, this questionable action ultimately will lead to Bruce's redemption, with Dick being central to that development. Which is nice and handy in thematic terms.

just a thought.

 

[El Payaso]

Oh, ok; no sarcasm for you.

Yes, I can believe in technological advances that might not be true far more than legal procedures that are lousily brought to screen.

Now, the plausibility of such a man like Bruce getting to adopt Dick is just one of the problems. It's hard to believe he could have a chance with that past and not being married (something you keep forgetting/ignoring).

That said, there's no reason on Earth why Bruce would want to become a father. His mission ties him to a double life, he cannot have a girlfriend so he knows he can't give a kid a normal/healthy lifis not a fatherly role model. He can be killed every night. After all that he's lived in this franchise, I doubt he could ever think he needs or could be a slightly good father.

His way to copnnect and help people, orphans, innocents, etc is being Batman. This daddy b.s. has no place into this.

Nolan's genius has indeed found the best way to make Robin work at his best: he's not including him.

 

[cin0]

that's wat i was saying but El payaso and gaiusbaltar think its a bad idea.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Nothing in Bruce Wayne's public life support the idea that he could be a responsible father.

Nothing in his personal life either, I might add.

and he wouldnt just walk up to the judge and say "Ok judge, look, I wasn't drunk that night, didn't burn my house and I am not relly a playboy nor a womanizer. I'm Batman and I have to fake all of those things." But we all know that he did fake all those things, we all know he doesnt get drunk, we all know he doesnt stay out all night partying

But we're not the one who can make that call. A judge can. And no judge knows the Truth. If you're trying to argue that the (film's) world is a just and fair place, it isn't. It doesn't take much experience to realize it. So please, stop arguing that. You're getting sarcasm because you're being unreasonable here. These movies don't deal with possibility. They deal with causality. I remember a Roger Ebert line that said that, strictly speaking, Batman could have slipped on a poodle in the batcave or an alley, smashed his had against the ground and died, the last shot of the movie being Batman lying dead on the pool. Roll credits. And that could be in a bat-film. It's not impossible. It doesn't defy logic or plausibility. But it is A HORRIBLE IDEA anyway.

There is something called Causality. In most meaningful, good narrative, is even more important than in the Real World. What happens early in a story has to matter later. If Bruce can damage his reputation but not face the consequences of it, then that was a bad choice in a poorly constructed story. You would actually be sacrificing a lot of world-building and psychological progressions, just to have Robin in the film. I beg the gods can't hear you.

 

[El Payaso]

Did you just quoted cin0 as "El Payaso"?

*sarcasm deleted*

 

[cin0]

Oh, ok; no sarcasm for you.

Yes, I can believe in technological advances that might not be true far more than legal procedures that are lousily brought to screen.

Now, the plausibility of such a man like Bruce getting to adopt Dick is just one of the problems. It's hard to believe he could have a chance with that past and not being married (something you keep forgetting/ignoring).

That said, there's no reason on Earth why Bruce would want to become a father. His mission ties him to a double life, he cannot have a girlfriend so he knows he can't give a kid a normal/healthy lifis not a fatherly role model. He can be killed every night. After all that he's lived in this franchise, I doubt he could ever think he needs or could be a slightly good father.

His way to copnnect and help people, orphans, innocents, etc is being Batman. This daddy b.s. has no place into this.

Nolan's genius has indeed found the best way to make Robin work at his best: he's not including him.

im not ignoring or forgetting anything, i knew that from the beginning. the reason y he doesnt have a girlfriend isnt because he's batman. before he couldnt have a girlfriend because he wanted to be with rachel and he couldnt be with rachel until he was needed as batman anymore. now that rachel is dead there's really no point for him to try to stop being batman. dick was the first person bruce met that was like him, his parents were killed right in front of him and he was just a little kid. thats wat made bruce feel so close to him. im sure he felt that way about the people he protect. excluding dick from the story is not the way to go.

 

[CaptainClown]

that's wat i was saying but El payaso and gaiusbaltar think its a bad idea.

The way you are saying it should happen is what they are getting on your case about. You haven't presented a reasonable context in which Bruce would adopt Dick. Saying "It is fiction" doesn't fly for some people.

 

[cin0]

Nothing in his personal life either, I might add.



But we're not the one who can make that call. A judge can. And no judge knows the Truth. If you're trying to argue that the (film's) world is a just and fair place, it isn't. It doesn't take much experience to realize it. So please, stop arguing that. You're getting sarcasm because you're being unreasonable here. These movies don't deal with possibility. They deal with causality. I remember a Roger Ebert line that said that, strictly speaking, Batman could have slipped on a poodle in the batcave or an alley, smashed his had against the ground and died, the last shot of the movie being Batman lying dead on the pool. Roll credits. And that could be in a bat-film. It's not impossible. It doesn't defy logic or plausibility. But it is A HORRIBLE IDEA anyway.

There is something called Causality. In most meaningful, good narrative, is even more important than in the Real World. What happens early in a story has to matter later. If Bruce can damage his reputation but not face the consequences of it, then that was a bad choice in a poorly constructed story. You would actually be sacrificing a lot of world-building and psychological progressions, just to have Robin in the film. I beg the gods can't hear you.

I see that u cut out ther part where i said we know he can prove it.

If its anybody who is being unreasonable it isnt me. bruce also ruined an already bad rep as batman but will no one ever believe batman is good after that, no. it would make no sense at all to realistically show bruce being liked by the public after they thought he killed harvey dent. but we'll more than likely see that.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

dick was the first person bruce met that was like him, his parents were killed right in front of him and he was just a little kid. thats wat made bruce feel so close to him.

Sure, he sees himself in Dick, but do you think he would want Dick to suffer the same things he suffered? Because Bruce's tragedy didn't end when he became Batman. He didn't even want to be that forever he wanted a real life too. He sacrifices in the end when he realizes there's no way out for him, but is he happy about it? Why do you think he would want to impose those same sacrifices on a 12-year-old who's not old enough to make decisions on his own?

Did you just quoted cin0 as "El Payaso"?

*sarcasm deleted*

Just corrected it. My sincerest and deepest apologies.

 

[CaptainClown]

im not ignoring or forgetting anything, i knew that from the beginning. the reason y he doesnt have a girlfriend isnt because he's batman. before he couldnt have a girlfriend because he wanted to be with rachel and he couldnt be with rachel until he was needed as batman anymore. now that rachel is dead there's really no point for him to try to stop being batman. dick was the first person bruce met that was like him, his parents were killed right in front of him and he was just a little kid. thats wat made bruce feel so close to him. im sure he felt that way about the people he protect. excluding dick from the story is not the way to go.

So he would endanger another person to further his 'cause'? He lost Rachel, Harvey and in a way Gordon (the faking of his death). The direction of Batman/Bruce at present is that he is going to shut himself off from human connections and probably go steadfast into vigilantism.

If this transition of Batman/Bruce is not touched upon. Then it would be a terrible transition of the character, as it proves he has learned nothing from his last encounter (for better or worse). Not to mention as GaiusBaltar said, that Bruce should face his consequences of dashing his Bruce Wayne persona on the rocks. That is an area of the story that has not been explored, however it has been built up since the last two movies. If we ignore those aspects then it creates a world that does not follow cause and effect. But we have seen that the Nolan series ties itself to the idea of cause and effect. Cause - Death of the Waynes Effect - Bruce Waynes shut off and emo status/ in turn creating Batman
Cause - batman Effect - Batmen and Joker. and so on and so forth. It is a solid formula that has grown and developed by Nolan and if it is abandoned would make the third movie feel completely separate from the rest of the series.

Yes you can have Robin in the series, but with the variables presented within the film Robin would not be similar to the comic representation. If Robin was introduced I would not want to see him as a ward of Bruce but going out on his own.

 

[CaptainClown]

I see that u cut out ther part where i said we know he can prove it.

If its anybody who is being unreasonable it isnt me. bruce also ruined an already bad rep as batman but will no one ever believe batman is good after that, no. it would make no sense at all to realistically show bruce being liked by the public after they thought he killed harvey dent. but we'll more than likely see that.

Batman though operates outside of social right and wrong. Bruce Wayne does and is restricted because of that.

Also most people in the city already don't know what to think of Batman, and I believe most of the citizens have not cared for Batman from the start. Bruce Wayne as a public figure has no connection to the death of Harvey Dent and perceive him as just a diva.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I see that u cut out ther part where i said we know he can prove it.

I tend to dismiss and cut out unreasonable and illogical comments to make my opponent look better. I didn't want to state the obvious: if he proves it, then he goes to prison for reckless vigilantism or gets whacked by the mob. In which of those cases could he adopt? Yeah, neither.

bruce also ruined an already bad rep as batman but will no one ever believe batman is good after that, no. it would make no sense at all to realistically show bruce being liked by the public after they thought he killed harvey dent. but we'll more than likely see that.

... yeah, more than likely after a ****load of things happen in between. He can be liked again and maybe even forgiven, but Gotham's citizens would need to find out the truth about Dent.
If he reveals the truth about the arson, he reveals the truth about Batman. Thus, he goes to jail, at least. Read above.

 

[GlasgowBat]

only thing i'll mention.....we all have bore witness in recent years to the madonna adoption thing.....people seemingly unsuitable for parentage have been allowed to adopt in the real world.

here's a thought; turn it into a story-point. Is Bruce, in his struggle to cope with the strains placed upon his night-time activities, begun to cross lines? does he, throughout the early part of the story, begin to cross lines (minor, but important ones) so as to get the job done? maybe he adopts an "ends justifies the means" mantra of sorts. Then when he witnesses the death of the grayosns, he sees himslef in Dick.

que a neat way of returning a degree of focus on the loss of the waynes which was largely missing from TDK(understandably). as well as this, bruce feels it necessary to take in this child; maybe Dick tries to get revenge, maybe bruce is just trying to help without intending to create a sidekick, that's details for another day. the point is, Bruce decides he'll take this child in, and if it means using his fame and power to achieve a goal of noble intent, he does just that and bends the rules; hardly unlikely in Gotham, and hardly out of Wayne's reach.

thus, this questionable action ultimately will lead to Bruce's redemption, with Dick being central to that development. Which is nice and handy in thematic terms.

just a thought.

re-post