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

[DarkKnight FTW]

But Nolan won't use Robin. Its much too soon. It would have to be in the next trilogy, should another director continue with the current continuity.

 

[J. Custer]

Robin could work but the character has to be introduced, written, filmed and portrayed properly. It won't be easy but it could be done. I'd personally like to see a portrayal similar to Damian Wayne in Batman & Robin with an introduction similar but not the same as Carrie from The Dark Knight Returns. He would be inspired by Batman with a boss Zucko character being the guy that ordered the hit on his parents. He's a circus performer and already a trained fighter, acrobat and street runner. He's not bright and campy but darker and mischevious like the early 1940's Robin. I see him as a 14-15 yo kid, very intelligent for his age. He's out for revenge for his parents death. He would start off operating independently from Batman and end up saving his life. Perhaps Batman or Bruce Wayne failed to save his parents life and that could be played with? Or they would be forced into operating together for whatever reason. Bruce adopting Dick Grayson maybe should not happen, we'll leave that to Leslie Thompkins, with Bruce being his mentor...

 

[cin0]

It's also getting increasingly tiring to read entire analyses concluding why Robin will not work, instead of exploring possible scenarios why it could. It seems personal opinion has got in the way of objective critiquing.

I'm all for Robin coming into this franchise, but even so I know the risks that it entails. But really this comes with the territory, any new addition can feasibly muck the balance of things if not handled appropriately. It's just a bit saddening that fans criticize one of the premiere supporting characters of the mythos, despite this fact.

We all know Nolan isn't going to handle Robin, but a large part of me hoped that he grew a change of heart during this process. If only to see the very predictable (non)reactions from those that were completely against the idea in the first place. I've done this dance before though. With Joker and with Two-Face during the TDK hype days. The naysayers never stick around to fully enjoy the humble pie, and if they do, they're so open-minded and apologetic that you feel like an ass for trying to push it in their faces.

So f**k this useless debate. At least the Catwoman thread allows me to look at and discuss sexy wimmens.

Exactly

I hate robin and the people who want to see him in the movie, grow up....

this sounds childish to me.

 

[J. Custer]

"Yeah, swear to US!" Cool!

 

[terry78]

IF that Kick-Ass movie does it well enough, that would be example of a route they may go with Robin, but on a slightly more fantastic level.

 

[nobycane]

I agree with so many others on this board...by adding Robin into the story line this early will only tarnish the trilogy that WB and Nolan have set out to make.

The biggest issue with the previous franchise after Burton left was the introduction of Robin......It really made the series and the last two movies terrible and campy.

The success of the current reboot Batman series by Nolan has been due to the realism of the character(s) and the issues surrounding the environment the characters live in. The whole point of the series (current) is to take the viewers on the journey of Bruce Wayne/Batman's initial story at the beginning of his career. Introducing Robin/Dick Grayson at such an early stage of Bruce Wayne/Batman's life is impractical to the essence of the storyline and timeline based on comic book canon.

Dick Grayson did not come into the picture or Bruce's life until Bruce was much older, mature and had more experience....at the end of TDK, Bruce has only been Batman and bringing justice to Gotham for less than a half a decade (5 years). Why would you want to introduce Robin within the 1st 10 years of Batman's career? Doesn't make any sense......Dick is still probably a toddler in TDK anyways.

Lets be realistic people...........

 

[Chris Wallace]

But that's exactly my point. He'll never settle down and that's why he gets this weird batfamily substitute. 1) Robin is not another hero that Batman will team up with. He is his son.
2) Nightwing is a whole different character than Robin. Nightwing isnt Batman's sidekick, Robin is. Dick only took on the NW persona when he left Bruce.
3) How long can Batman fly solo in his airtight world before it becomes stagnant? Some of the best Batman stories are teamup stories.

But if i remember correctly Bruce only adopted Dick because he thought he could raise him well and help him deal with his loss the way Alfred did with him. Its Dick that forces him to take him in as a sidekick when he tries to seek vengeance against his parent's killer. In Batman Forever, BTAS, The Batman, Dick forced Bruce to take him in. His circus training comes in handly because it means that Dick has some basic fighting moves and agility when he starts so he can force Batman's hand. (in before realism fans come in to point that circus training =/= martial arts. Gee its a freaking comic book. Dick can at least dodge the attacks)

So you see its not like Bruce adopted Dick with the intention of turning him into a vigilante but Dick chose it and even forced him to do it. Just reset Dick's age at 16 instead of 12 and it will be fine.

You seem to have misunderstood me; I said I liked the fact that Bruce didn't want to take him on; eagerly recruiting a kid to take up his cause seems more against his character than realizing the boy can't be deterred and choosing to guide him on his path. And I would think the agility thing actually gives Robin an edge over Batman in combat. It's like all the child-endangerment arguments. I once heard Stan Lee refer to kid sidekicks as child endangerment, when ironically, I can name 7 kids that he wrote into harm's way-6 WITHOUT the benefit of an adult mentor accompanying them into battle.
I'm not as anti-Robin as many of the posters here. I don't see how it can work but I'm open to any scenario in which it could. And again, I maintain that the premise of Robin's intro was one of the few things that BF got right.

 

[Crook]

The biggest issue with the previous franchise after Burton left was the introduction of Robin......It really made the series and the last two movies terrible and campy.

Yes, because the actors, script, art design, and director were not at all responsible for the direction this series went. It was all Robin. Robin was the domino effect that made everything campy.

The success of the current reboot Batman series by Nolan has been due to the realism of the character(s) and the issues surrounding the environment the characters live in. The whole point of the series (current) is to take the viewers on the journey of Bruce Wayne/Batman's initial story at the beginning of his career. Introducing Robin/Dick Grayson at such an early stage of Bruce Wayne/Batman's life is impractical to the essence of the storyline and timeline based on comic book canon.

Dick Grayson did not come into the picture or Bruce's life until Bruce was much older, mature and had more experience....

OH. MY. GOD.

Wrong in every sense of the word. You should brush up on your history because not only did Robin debut in 1940 (one year after Batman), but in comic book canon he also entered the picture early on in Batman's career (years 2-3 to be precise). This has been true for every time the Batman timeline has been retold/rebooted.

Try fact-checking next time, ok?

 

[Chris Wallace]

I have argued for a while that Robin hurt the Batman mythos more than he helped it, for had it not been for him I don't think we ever would have seen the campy nonsense that polluted the character for more than 40 years. But that doesn't mean that the storyline can't benefit from him at all; Crook is right in that it was more the mishandling of Robin's presence than Robin's presence itself that sank the previous series. And maybe Batman doesn't have to lose his edge just because there's a kid around. They managed to find a way to do this in the 90's animated series.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I'm sorry Crook, but except that one last bit about the moment of Robin's entrance, I think the rest is quite spot on.


"The success of the current reboot Batman series by Nolan has been due to the realism of the character(s) and the issues surrounding the environment the characters live in. The whole point of the series (current) is to take the viewers on the journey of Bruce Wayne/Batman's initial story at the beginning of his career. Introducing Robin/Dick Grayson at such an early stage of Bruce Wayne/Batman's life is impractical to the essence of the storyline and timeline based on comic book canon."


I couldn't have said it better. While is true that in all canon timelines Dick appears at least on Batman's 3rd year, is also true that either many other characters and situations had preceeded him, and that Batman's first two years in the Nolanverse are quite different from what we've usually seen in the comics, and Nolan's Bruce remains still quite unexperienced. If you take out all the hijacking, this thread is only to discuss Nolan's inclusion of Robin in his film franchise, which will probably last only one more movie. It's not to figure out if Robin would work in any film. We're not talking strictly about the Nolanverse, either. We're talking about the SEQUEL. And in the sequel, there are far more organic things to be added and explored than adding Robin to the mix ahead of his natural time.

And note that I mean a profound distinction. Not his "historical/traditional" time, but his "natural" time.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I just really think the circumstances work against his being integrated into the story. Nevermind the obstacles against Bruce being allowed custody; Batman's wanted for murder-multiple murders. So he's got to watch his back for the bad guys as well as the cops. Training a rookie sidekick would be a nightmare. Plus, seeing a kid running around with him would probably make the cops hunt him twice as hard.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I would like Dick to be included,but NOT Robin. Im not saying TOTAL comparison,but look at The Kid from Dick Tracy. He helped Tracy out of danger,without a costume or fighting thugs.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't know if Bruce Wayne's ward should appear publicly with Batman.

 

[Rodrigo90]

You can do the regular origin. Bruce takes Dick to the manor. Or All Star origin, Batman takes him to the cave.

 

[Chris Wallace]

If he says the line from All Star*, I will walk out of the theatre.
I'm curious; am I the only flexible naysayer on this thread?









*You know which one I'm talking about.

 

[Crook]

I couldn't have said it better. While is true that in all canon timelines Dick appears at least on Batman's 3rd year, is also true that either many other characters and situations had preceeded him, and that Batman's first two years in the Nolanverse are quite different from what we've usually seen in the comics, and Nolan's Bruce remains still quite unexperienced.

I'm not disputing that. But it was completely unfounded to use comic book canon to justify/crucify anything in the Nolan series. As pointed out, they're two different entities that work independently of each other. The fact that he pulled historical events out of his ass is just embarrassingly amusing.

If you take out all the hijacking, this thread is only to discuss Nolan's inclusion of Robin in his film franchise, which will probably last only one more movie. It's not to figure out if Robin would work in any film. We're not talking strictly about the Nolanverse, either. We're talking about the SEQUEL. And in the sequel, there are far more organic things to be added and explored than adding Robin to the mix ahead of his natural time.

I would argue that a creator need not intently quantify various scenarios possible for a follow-up, and rather focus on making the story they want a logical progression from the material created, as naturally as possible.

If we look at the conclusion to BB, Nolan had so many ways to go for a sequel. Some of which were probably more "organic", as you put it. Did he succeed with that in every aspect? I would say no. Rachel being the biggest sticking point for me. As far as I was concerned, her arc was nicely tied up in the first film and it was not at all necessary to include her in any follow-up. TDK confirmed my notion when her sole purpose was to be a catalyst to Bruce and Harvey's emotional breakdowns. In spite of that Nolan made it work. He was looking at the big picture, and at the end of the day, even the shortcomings benefited the story. With a lesser artist, it could have easily turned into a disaster.

One of Nolan's biggest strengths is knowing how all the pieces fit together. Even if on an individual basis such pieces aren't the best (which is subjective, but we'll ignore that for sake of a short discussion), it's how everything works in sync with one another that matters. This is a big thread, I've seen some great ideas in how Robin's inclusion specifically fits a TDK sequel. The material is vast, and the potential is there. It can be used, or in this case, likely just be one of the many what-if's that never came to pass.

My issue is people insisting with a firm hand that it won't work. Unfortunately, Nolan's resistance towards the character only reaffirms these false beliefs. For the moment they can rest easy on this, because there really is no way for them to be proven wrong. But I tell ya, if only I had the hindsight to save the various posts I've seen over the years where fans magically feel like they're in tune with what Nolan has in mind for this franchise. Everything from the approach to Batman, to visual aesthetics, to the handling of Joker, the inclusion of Two-Face, etc etc.

You'd truly be in awe at what people have said, and what Nolan actually did. And how 99% of the time, these same people keep their mouths shut and never own up to all the babbling they've done. It's one of my biggest regrets in my time here.

 

[batmaluco]

But that's exactly my point. He'll never settle down and that's why he gets this weird batfamily substitute.

A 'weird batfamily substitute' which is inherently campy (if displays the ridiculousness of it), or melodramatic (if takes the seriousness route)...

My point is: why bother if the vast majority of Batman fans, even among hardcore batfans, don't really care about the character?

 

[batmaluco]

I agree. It doesn't even seem like something he would do. One of the things I liked about the dynamic in the much-maligned Batman Forever was Bruce's reluctance to take on a partner; he'd rather quit than drag someone else down the path he's chosen.


Which he wouldn't even know how to do. His hope at normalcy ended when Chill pulled the trigger.
My kid said something that really made me laugh;

"SWEAR TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Yeah, swear to us!"

haha, that's funny!

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I would argue that a creator need not intently quantify various scenarios possible for a follow-up, and rather focus on making the story they want a logical progression from the material created, as naturally as possible.

If we look at the conclusion to BB, Nolan had so many ways to go for a sequel. Some of which were probably more "organic", as you put it. Did he succeed with that in every aspect? I would say no. Rachel being the biggest sticking point for me. As far as I was concerned, her arc was nicely tied up in the first film and it was not at all necessary to include her in any follow-up. TDK confirmed my notion when her sole purpose was to be a catalyst to Bruce and Harvey's emotional breakdowns. In spite of that Nolan made it work. He was looking at the big picture, and at the end of the day, even the shortcomings benefited the story. With a lesser artist, it could have easily turned into a disaster.

I have to disagree with that. Rachel story could have been tied up by the end of Begins. But her purpose on the story was strengthened and expanded upon in TDK, much more than it was in the first movie. In fact, I didn't get to understand her role completely until I saw her in TDK, especially after I saw her demise and what it meant to that world. They could've made a whole new character to achieve that, but her re-inclusion guaranteed a better motive for Bruce's desire to quit being Batman. He had a promise of a normal life if he left Batman behind. That promise was made in the end of Begins. You couldn't have done it well enough leaving Rachel out.

Besides that, there are all the other story points that were announced in Begins, escalation being the biggest of them. It followed a nicely done pogression, common in the Hero's Journey archetype. The hero (Bruce) obtained a boon (being Batman and a figure of hope in his city) in the first third of the story (the end of Begins) and then he is punished and tested to see if he can handle the boon (the Joker emerges) much in the way the gods punished Prometheus for giving fire to mankind.

Everything in TDK was organic ans built upon the foundations Begins made. For my life, I cannot think of one aspect that was not done this way, except maybe the total lack of any mention of Bruce's parents. But that's just me. There are aspects of his relationship with his parent's legacy and his feelings about their death that remained unclosed, but they can be tied up in the third installment, no hurries.

Bottom line: unlike you, I do believe that TDK meant a perfect thematic and narrative progression over Begins. That's why I'm confident that another perfect progression can be achieved and must be prioritized over anything else... especially Robin's inclusion. Although I know we differ here, we can agree to disagree. Rest assured, if Robin ends up beating all odds and appearing the sequel, I won't magically disappear. I'll be present and willing to eat my words (granted the mods are mercy with me and don't ban me before).

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I'm curious; am I the only flexible naysayer on this thread?

No you're not, I believe Robin can be easily and organically in a sequel, just not in the next one. I think Dick Grayson can come in as a 11-14 year old kid, Bruce can adopt him (after a big character growth and public image transforation) and the, after great reluctance, agree to take him under his wing as a vigilante side-kikc, but only after a 7 years training abroad, much in the vein of Bruce's own training.

That would be a believable and acceptable Robin for me, but obviously that rules him out of the nest film, unless you make some big ellipses and leave out some big chunks of the story that are more inmediate and important in this franchise than Robin's inclusion, IMO.

Actually, maybe I'm not as flexible as I thought.

 

[nobycane]

Dude..........seriously? Do you even really read the books?

If you "read into the story", and get a timeline and sense within the Batman comics (whether it is Batman or Detective comics) the reality of Bruce's life - years have literally passed before the initial introduction of Robin.
Ok - so what, Robin first appears in Issue #38 (1940).... in our reality that is literally one calendar year later or so.....but within the comic storyline; many, many years have transpired since Bruce donned the cowl and cape.

So, fact checking - yes, I have my facts correct bub! And I take great offense at your comments that I am pulling this out of my ass!
Maybe you should read up on your storylines and history as well

CHEERS!

Yes, because the actors, script, art design, and director were not at all responsible for the direction this series went. It was all Robin. Robin was the domino effect that made everything campy.


OH. MY. GOD.

Wrong in every sense of the word. You should brush up on your history because not only did Robin debut in 1940 (one year after Batman), but in comic book canon he also entered the picture early on in Batman's career (years 2-3 to be precise). This has been true for every time the Batman timeline has been retold/rebooted.

Try fact-checking next time, ok?

 

[Chris Wallace]

haha, that's funny!

And from a 10-year-old, no less.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Dude..........seriously? Do you even really read the books?

If you "read into the story", and get a timeline and sense within the Batman comics (whether it is Batman or Detective comics) the reality of Bruce's life - years have literally passed before the initial introduction of Robin.
Ok - so what, Robin first appears in Issue #38 (1940).... in our reality that is literally one calendar year later or so.....but within the comic storyline; many, many years have transpired since Bruce donned the cowl and cape.

So, fact checking - yes, I have my facts correct bub! And I take great offense at your comments that I am pulling this out of my ass!
Maybe you should read up on your storylines and history as well

CHEERS!

You are very wrong. Every writer who has done Robin,ALWAYS has it into a year or two of Batman's career when he is introduced. Cause thats how it was originally done and actually intended. If that explanation was true, wouldnt Batman be in 3543 AD?

 

[cin0]

I agree. It doesn't even seem like something he would do. One of the things I liked about the dynamic in the much-maligned Batman Forever was Bruce's reluctance to take on a partner; he'd rather quit than drag someone else down the path he's chosen.


Which he wouldn't even know how to do. His hope at normalcy ended when Chill pulled the trigger.
My kid said something that really made me laugh;

"SWEAR TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Yeah, swear to us!"

Thats pretty funny but it would be more like this

"yeah, swear to us!"

 

[Chris Wallace]

Yeah, but that's less funny.