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

[AnorexicBatman]

Can somebody post the individual problems that Robin presents?
I want to have a go and try to solve them.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Can somebody post the individual problems that Robin presents?
I want to have a go and try to solve them.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Can somebody post the individual problems that Robin presents?
I want to have a go and try to solve them.

As Crook kind of already stated, Robin presents a challenge because:

1) another character is introduced into the film which means screen time must be divided

2) his back story must be carefully done

3) they must try to erase the stain of Batman Forever

4) finding the proper actor

5) design that will both make sense in the story, plus be true enough for fans to enjoy

6) write it in such a way that will make the viewer believe that Robin is as realistic as Batman & as necessary as Batman (this probably couldn't be done by even the most seasoned Hollywood writers)

 

[Comics N' Toons]

double post!

 

[Comics N' Toons]

double post!

 

[The Joker]

1) another character is introduced into the film which means screen time must be divided

That's not a problem. Dick's story serves Batman, because Batman sees in him the conflict and trauma he endured when he lost his parents.

Bruce is an integral part to Dick's story. He is not taking away from Batman's screen time, but rather adding to it.

2) his back story must be carefully done

Not difficult to do. If they can do Batman's so well, and interwine Ra's Al Ghul into it, then Robin's will be even easier as his is set in Gotham, and doesn't involve global travelling.

3) they must try to erase the stain of Batman Forever

4) finding the proper actor

In fairness, these were problems presented with Two Face as well. And the Riddler if they ever decide to use him.

5) design that will both make sense in the story, plus be true enough for fans to enjoy

That goes for any comic book character who's costume does not translate well onto screen.

6) write it in such a way that will make the viewer believe that Robin is as realistic as Batman & as necessary as Batman (this probably couldn't be done by even the most seasoned Hollywood writers)

I'm not sure what you mean by realistic. Robin's motives and ambitions mirror Batman's.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

As Crook kind of already stated, Robin presents a challenge because:

1) another character is introduced into the film which means screen time must be divided

2) his back story must be carefully done

3) they must try to erase the stain of Batman Forever

4) finding the proper actor

5) design that will both make sense in the story, plus be true enough for fans to enjoy

6) write it in such a way that will make the viewer believe that Robin is as realistic as Batman & as necessary as Batman (this probably couldn't be done by even the most seasoned Hollywood writers)

1) Yes but how much would that be? Not much I'd suppose since Robin/Richard would mostly be on screen with Batman/Bruce. Mostly shared screen time. On the other hand someone like Catwoman would require more

2) Naturally. You could easily tie it in with the main plot. It could be about Bruce/Batman redeeming themselves in the eyes of the public through Dick/Robin (Batman has a sidekick? Maybe he is human!). Tony Zucco could easily be a thug working for Black Mask/Penguin etc.

3) Which had an average yet not bad portrayal of Robin?

4) Anton Yelchin or Micheal Cera (Watch "Youth In Revolt" He's good) or a newcomer

5) Many ideas have been suggested including using a proto-Nightwing suit and having it be based on a light armor that pilots could wear or even a full body "Bullet-proof vest"

6) Nietzsche once said that "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster". Robin should portray that one beacon of hope/light that keeps Batman/Bruce from snapping. Even Alfred said in TDK/Begins, "One day you will get lost in that monster of yours"

In fact.

"...but your (Robin's) pain doesn't die with Harvey (Dick wanted to kill him), it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why."

That's from "Forever"
Not such bad movie after all

 

[Saint]

Yeah, well, if you cheese up everything then Robin won't be felt as cheesey.

Fantasy isn't cheese, it's fantasy. I understand you have an incredibly narrow view as to what constitutes acceptable content for a Batman movie, and that's fine, but people with superpowers and a world of superheroes isn't cheese, it's fantasy (or science fiction as the case may be, but let's just call it fantasy to keep things simple right now). You do a disservice to the entire genre by describing it as "cheese," and anyone who bothers to think about it understands it's only cheese if it's written that way.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Fantasy isn't cheese, it's fantasy. I understand you have an incredibly narrow view as to what constitutes acceptable content for a Batman movie, and that's fine, but people with superpowers and a world of superheroes isn't cheese, it's fantasy (or science fiction as the case may be, but let's just call it fantasy to keep things simple right now). You do a disservice to the entire genre by describing it as "cheese," and anyone who bothers to think about it understands it's only cheese if it's written that way.

I can't disagree more. Stardust is a fantasy and it's cheesy. The Prestige, also a fantasy, is not cheesy. Watchmen, a comic-book loaded with sci-fi, isn't cheesy. Fantasy and Cheese are two different concepts that do not always go hand in hand. For the record, I don't believe El Payaso is confusing them either.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Since you've noted that you've said your last word on Rachel, I'll refrain from responding to that subject to drive this topic back on track. But if you do wish to see my response to it, I'll type it up for ya if I have the time, in a pm or something.

I don't know man, I'll leave it up to you and your level of interest. Me, I can't let a good discussion go by, it's my hobby.

Half the threads are so long because there are simply too many people that come and go over the years to continue the debate. I myself have taken a break from threads such as these, but it never fails to consistently bring up the same 3 or 4 discussions, just reworded and with different posters.

I've seen some parts of this thread's past and then, just like now, there were people ignoring opposing arguments, bringing up the same points instead of addressing the counter-arguments. IMO, that is what keeps this thread alive. Not falling into that trap is too difficult because discussions branch and ramificate into multiple topics (with adoption politics and
Rachel I'll admit my share of guilt) but some of the same issues keep being repeated in a loop... and the loop closes when some of the arguments are left ignored.

There is a point in that Robin is more difficult to handle compared to Joker, but they tackle the creative realm from opposite ends. Joker can be introduced almost at any point in Batman's life, as time plays little issue on their relationship. Functioning as the main villain, he also works because an entire story can be crafted around him as the antagonist.

Dick is a supporting character so it's trickier to gauge when and where he should come in. Especially on film. Not only do you have to introduce him, but you have to develop his weighty backstory, AND you'd have to juggle the main plot of the film. So I definitely understand the resistance towards that type of pressure. But hey, I'm not a writer so I couldn't care less how difficult it is. It's up to them to make sure a quality product is put out.
I just want it to work.

The Joker could be introduced at anytime, but they chose to bring him right at the beginning of TDK because the issues they wanted to address (the emergence of the freaks, Batman being the probablce cause of it) are better through with the Joker at hand. And with the end of Begins, it wasn't that easy to postpone his arrival.

Robin's appearance in the chronology is a trivial aspect of the character and can be adapted like any other. For example, one year (which can be a valid impasse from B3 to whatever comes next) isn't that big a difference for the character, and can allow many other aspects to come before him. I believe most readers would agree that many other villains beside the
Scarecrow, Two-Face and the Joker predate Robin's origin in the chronology. Ra's al Ghul first appearance is later than Robin's and Nolan had him appear before anyone else.

I dare saying such chronological order is not of his interest.

There's also the fact that the series doesn't need to particularly have an endpoint based on a number. Hollywood is obsessed with trilogies for some reason, even though there is absolutely no basis to that numerical value from a storytelling perspective. If Nolan decides to solely focus on Dick, I would suspect he isn't intent on leaving the franchise with 3. This
isn't exclusive to Dick of course, it could apply to the likes of Selina and (previously thought) Harvey.

That's why I said "probably", but there are many other things to consider... The other projects Nolan chooses step aside of the Batman or the comic-book realms. We don't even have the certainty of his return and with each film that certainty is even smaller. We may have to wait the last word on the matter in the sequel's final scenes, of course. There's also the issue of his out-spoken yet polite rejection of Robin for his series. That adds a lot
of weight to that "probably" word.

Yeah, it's a catch-22 almost, but you gotta take the good with the bad I suppose.

I wasn't "pleased" with Batman becoming more of a supporting character in TDK, or Two-Face being a glorified cameo, but on the other hand I got a whole lot of Joker and fully fleshed roles from Harvey and Gordon, which I did not expect so soon.

With Robin, I know Batman's lonely solo act will be sacrificed, and screentime is gonna have to be divided more. It's not something I'm happy to lose, but given the writer is equipped to not make me miss it as I'm in that story...they've succeeded.

It doesn't depend only on the writers' talent, but also on the current circumstances and the weight of what is being sacrificed.

In "The Dark Knight", Nolan was leaving Batman somewhat behind after he had been in the foreground for the vast majority of Begins. He wasn't relegated that much and it allowed three more characters to be fully fleshed out (Joker, Dent, and I'm counting Gordon in too).

But in spite of those extenuating elements in TDK, the almost universal agreement is that Batman needs to regain the focus once more for B3.

So, I am taking the good with the bad. While we remain in hypothetical, unconfirmend grounds, I'm choosing what I consider the less of two evils. It's not Robin's protagonism against Batman's anymore. It's Robin against Batman and a set of new supporting characters. Most new villains need less screentime for their introductions than Robin does, hence leaving him out gives a chance for MORE characters, several of which I consider at least as important as he is. Of course, I could be wrong. But they are still more in numbers.

 

[Saint]

I can't disagree more. Stardust is a fantasy and it's cheesy. The Prestige, also a fantasy, is not cheesy. Watchmen, a comic-book loaded with sci-fi, isn't cheesy. Fantasy and Cheese are two different concepts that do not always go hand in hand.

Er... Perhaps I wasn't clear, because you say "I can't disagree more," and then you agree with me completely. What you've written is the same thing I was trying to communicate.

To be clear, Earle posted a certain interpretation Batman that Payaso described as "cheesing it up." In fact, what Earle described was a fantasy-oriented interpretation of Batman, which would only be cheese if it was written as such--because, as you say, fantasy and cheese do not go hand in hand.

For the record, I don't believe El Payaso is confusing them either.

I can only comment on what he writes, and what he wrote doesn't leave much wiggle room. Of course, it is possible that what he wrote is not what he meant.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Fantasy isn't cheese, it's fantasy. I understand you have an incredibly narrow view as to what constitutes acceptable content for a Batman movie, and that's fine, but people with superpowers and a world of superheroes isn't cheese, it's fantasy (or science fiction as the case may be, but let's just call it fantasy to keep things simple right now). You do a disservice to the entire genre by describing it as "cheese," and anyone who bothers to think about it understands it's only cheese if it's written that way.

Nice post!

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Er... Perhaps I wasn't clear, because you say "I can't disagree more," and then you agree with me completely. What you've written is the same thing I was trying to communicate.

To be clear, Earle posted a certain interpretation Batman that Payaso described as "cheesing it up." In fact, what Earle described was a fantasy-oriented interpretation of Batman, which would only be cheese if it was written as such--because, as you say, fantasy and cheese do not go hand in hand.

No no, I just checked up and I understood completely. Mr. Earle mentioned several elements of the comics:

if Batman had his comics suit (grey with underpants), Gotham was filled with people who have plant or clay powers, and finally if Gotham was part of a bigger universe filled with heroes in flashy suits.

There are three ideas there, and only one of them is a fantasy, the super-powers. The flashy suits don't beling in fantasy. But all of them, the powers and the wardrobes, IMO, are cheesy. There are other examples in fiction of superpowers that are not cheesy. I can think of Rogue's deathly skin, for instance (minus the taking of other mutant's powers).

I do acknowledge how subjective that concept may be, what it's cheese or not for you and for me. But I replied because you took that as a criticism to fantasy in general when there was no evidence of him doing that. Judging from what I see, you jumped to conclusions. He was criticizing the only thing those three or four elements have in common, which is not irrealism, just cheesiness. And to be frank, flashy costumes, people controlling giant mutant plants and other people that can mold their clay bodies into many forms is.. yeah, pretty cheesy. Although bot a bad thing when placed into favorable context, which was Payaso's point anyway.

 

[Cain]

Fantasy isn't cheese, it's fantasy. I understand you have an incredibly narrow view as to what constitutes acceptable content for a Batman movie, and that's fine, but people with superpowers and a world of superheroes isn't cheese, it's fantasy (or science fiction as the case may be, but let's just call it fantasy to keep things simple right now). You do a disservice to the entire genre by describing it as "cheese," and anyone who bothers to think about it understands it's only cheese if it's written that way.

could always count on you to come through with the most sensible post in a thread, good stuff

 

[Mr. Earle]

I can't disagree more. Stardust is a fantasy and it's cheesy. The Prestige, also a fantasy, is not cheesy. Watchmen, a comic-book loaded with sci-fi, isn't cheesy. Fantasy and Cheese are two different concepts that do not always go hand in hand. For the record, I don't believe El Payaso is confusing them either.

Watchmen is cheesy alright. In fact its intentionally cheesy.

Batman has his own canon myth, stories and characters. Whether its cheesy, bad, deep, shallow, stupid, etc its a whole other thing. But when you take this magnificent and vast franchise and adapt only a small fraction of it because you have a vision of pseudorealism, then frankly its disappointing.

Its like telling the story of Odysseus but leaving out the monsters and gods because "its cheesy". Even the most down to earth story can be cheesy and even the most scifi and colourful story can be deep. I'd rather watch Batman team up with Superman than watch him take on the mob again.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No no, I just checked up and I understood completely. Mr. Earle mentioned several elements of the comics:



There are three ideas there, and only one of them is a fantasy, the super-powers. The flashy suits don't beling in fantasy. But all of them, the powers and the wardrobes, IMO, are cheesy. There are other examples in fiction of superpowers that are not cheesy. I can think of Rogue's deathly skin, for instance (minus the taking of other mutant's powers).

I do acknowledge how subjective that concept may be, what it's cheese or not for you and for me. But I replied because you took that as a criticism to fantasy in general when there was no evidence of him doing that. Judging from what I see, you jumped to conclusions. He was criticizing the only thing those three or four elements have in common, which is not irrealism, just cheesiness. And to be frank, flashy costumes, people controlling giant mutant plants and other people that can mold their clay bodies into many forms is.. yeah, pretty cheesy. Although bot a bad thing when placed into favorable context, which was Payaso's point anyway.

But a guy dressed as a clown and another whose face is burnt to the bone isnt? Hell, a guy dressed up as a bat to fight crime isnt cheesy?
This is a comic book franchise. Accept it for what it is and enjoy its magic. If you want crime dramas, look up crime dramas. This is not what batman is about.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

But a guy dressed as a clown and another whose face is burnt to the bone isnt? Hell, a guy dressed up as a bat to fight crime isnt cheesy?

The perfect split of the faces is indeed somewhat cheesy. The bat-suit too. And hell, some one-liners and one or two scenes (Chopper falling down with cables?) are also cheesy. But those few elements are definitely on the minority. The overall tone of the franchise isn't cheesy. An the faulty logic here is to assume that the cheese should be increased when the tendency should be just the opposite. Some camp guarantees a degree of fun, but if the requisite to make Robin work is to amplify that, at the point of the game, I say Robin is not worthy.

This is a comic book franchise. Accept it for what it is and enjoy its magic. If you want crime dramas, look up crime dramas. This is not what batman is about.

Maybe not totally, but Batman is partially a big crime drama. And many comic book stories are crime dramas. No film adaptation can engross all the aspects of the Batman mythos, so Nolan decided to focus on the relative realistic setting and the crime drama aspects. If you don't see that, I cannot help you.

 

[Saint]

There are three ideas there, and only one of them is a fantasy, the super-powers.cheesy.

I think you have a narrow definition of fantasy, then, but that's not important. I think it's clear what content I'm referring to, and my argument remains the same whether you strictly describe those elements as fantasy or not.

But all of them, the powers and the wardrobes, IMO, are cheesy.

Then we have nothing else to talk about, I think. You will find no agreement from me on this point, as this is simply an absurd thing to say.

I will say, though, that I find your commentary on which elements of the Batman mythos are "cheesy" to be a little bit comical, considering that you also said that Watchmen (which contains comparable elements) is not cheesy. This seems to indicate that I was correct when I explained that cheese is a product of how the material is handled, and that these elements in the Batman universe are not inherently cheesy. If Watchmen can depict naked blue gods and flashy costumes without being cheesy, as you suggest, then Batman can do the same, yes? You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

But I replied because you took that as a criticism to fantasy in general when there was no evidence of him doing that.

I took it as a criticism to the fantastic elements of the superhero genre in general, because that is precisely how his statement reads.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Watchmen is cheesy alright. In fact its intentionally cheesy.

No no no, it intentionally takes many cheesy elements from popular culture but then subverts them and gives them the most iconoclastic constrasts. And cheesiness is all in the intention. Take TDK's Joker, for instance. He wears with some clown motifs (not full clown costume), but is a scarred, knife-waving psychopath with a knack for subverting people's principles and/or killing them. Now compare that to a handsome child acrobat who incredibly can fight adult criminals, and since he is heroic.. and an acrobat... he wears a tight with outfit with heroic motifs (like a cape) and make snarky remarks while defeating criminal scum using only his fists and legs. That is cheesier, because is redundant, idiotic and has no layer of deeper meaning.

Batman has his own canon myth, stories and characters. Whether its cheesy, bad, deep, shallow, stupid, etc its a whole other thing. But when you take this magnificent and vast franchise and adapt only a small fraction of it because you have a vision of pseudorealism, then frankly its disappointing.

As I said before, the Batman stories are spawning and episodic, and contain many contradictory elements. One single story in film cannot include all of them and work. It needs to pick an angle and fully exploit it. I'm sorry if you find that dissapointing, but other people apparently don't, as evidenced by the garguantuan financial and critical success of the franchise.

Its like telling the story of Odysseus but leaving out the monsters and gods because "its cheesy".

But, once again, that is what the Odyssey is supposed to be. It doesn't introduce noise in the world it depicts. It's not adding cheese to a majorly not cheesy story, which is what you guys seems to be okay with.

I'd rather watch Batman team up with Superman than watch him take on the mob again.

Then that means Nolan's style is not your cup of tea. But this thread is called "Nolan... add Robin" which, following the latest logic of the thread, is translated to "Nolan... change your style". At this moment in the game, for me, that's unnacceptable.

 

[Saint]

Then that means Nolan's style is not your cup of tea. But this thread is called "Nolan... add Robin" which, following the latest logic of the thread, is translated to "Nolan... change your style". At this moment in the game, for me, that's unnacceptable.

Well, obviously. The correct approach if Robin were to be introduced in this franchise is to change Robin's style, not Nolan's,

 

[El Payaso]

Fantasy isn't cheese, it's fantasy. I understand you have an incredibly narrow view as to what constitutes acceptable content for a Batman movie, and that's fine, but people with superpowers and a world of superheroes isn't cheese, it's fantasy (or science fiction as the case may be, but let's just call it fantasy to keep things simple right now). You do a disservice to the entire genre by describing it as "cheese," and anyone who bothers to think about it understands it's only cheese if it's written that way.

I never said that all fantasy was cheese but I was only addressing Earle's reference to Batman's "comics suit (grey with underpants)." Which is cheesey. And not fantastic.

I can't disagree more. Stardust is a fantasy and it's cheesy. The Prestige, also a fantasy, is not cheesy. Watchmen, a comic-book loaded with sci-fi, isn't cheesy. Fantasy and Cheese are two different concepts that do not always go hand in hand. For the record, I don't believe El Payaso is confusing them either.

I wasn't.

But I do agree with your post.

To be clear, Earle posted a certain interpretation Batman that Payaso described as "cheesing it up." In fact, what Earle described was a fantasy-oriented interpretation of Batman, which would only be cheese if it was written as such--because, as you say, fantasy and cheese do not go hand in hand.

I can only comment on what he writes, and what he wrote doesn't leave much wiggle room. Of course, it is possible that what he wrote is not what he meant.

In fact what he wrote had a lot to do with Batman's "comics suit (grey with underpants)" and "a bigger universe filled with heroes in flashy suits" and that's what I addressed in my replies. Why did you decide to ignore that is beyond me.

I specifically said "You're precisely cheesing him up if you pretend a realistic tone while having the ultimate crime fighter in tights with blue trunks over spandex."

That's what I wrote and what I meant. You just have to read everything not just one sentence (the one you quoted I assume).

 

[El Payaso]

But a guy dressed as a clown and another whose face is burnt to the bone isnt?

John Wayne Gacy was cheesey? People with severe burnt are cheesey?

Hell, a guy dressed up as a bat to fight crime isnt cheesy?

Not necessarily.

This is a comic book franchise. Accept it for what it is and enjoy its magic.

This is a movie franchise. Accept it for what it is and enjoy its magic.

If you want crime dramas, look up crime dramas. This is not what batman is about.

That's as absurd as to say "This is Batman. Not a detective story. If you want detective stories, look up detective stories. This is not what batman is about.

But Batman is a superhero... AND a detective. So yes, Batman is able to be about more than one thing. Like a superhero... and a crime drama.

So far he has been comedy, drama, fantasy, realistic toned, comics, movies, detective-like, James Bond-like, etc etc.

And that said, Batman might have fabulous gadgets but he's not super-powered so I don't know if he's actually a super-hero.

I think you have a narrow definition of fantasy, then, but that's not important. I think it's clear what content I'm referring to, and my argument remains the same whether you strictly describe those elements as fantasy or not.

What's clear is what I was referring to (which GaiusBaltar got perfectly) and which you just decided to ignore. Spandex with underpants over for a serious toned crime fighter movie might be difficult to take as believable, but it's hardly "fantastic."

I took it as a criticism to the fantastic elements of the superhero genre in general, because that is precisely how his statement reads.

...when you decide to ignore what it was actually talking about.

 

[Jahu-Momus]

A) The costume will never be light grey, blue cape and cowl, and dark blue underpants in a movie.

B) Any Bat villain could appear, but do not expect them to be like their comic counterparts. All the bat villains where changed for the sake of plot and character.

C) Only characters who can be molded into a real world setting will be used. This means that you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for Dr. Strange's man zombies, a super powered Clayface, or giant man eating plants

 

[terry78]

If you're a true fan, can you honestly say you would not want to see Bale's Batman take on Clayface?

 

[Jahu-Momus]

I am a true fan, but it would not, in any way, work in Nolans universe