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

[Comics N' Toons]

I for one have never really understood the hate that Robin gets... when you strip this character down to his basics, he is BATMAN Jr.

There have been some seriously BEAUTIFUL moments with Robin... as a detective, as a ninja, as an excuse for high adventure... Every incarnation of Robin has consistently kicked ass!

The basic suit looks awesome (maybe the yellow cape could be an exception) but really. Batsey trained this guy & he is great.

ADD HIM NOLAN!

 

[Brother Jack]

At the end of the day I think Robin is more trouble than he's worth for this continuity. Maybe it'll be right when the next director comes into the franchise, but not now.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I think you have a narrow definition of fantasy, then, but that's not important.

Oh, I don't, I just go by actual concepts. I think you're smart enough to understand the difference between "Fantasy" as opposed to Realism, and cheesiness. It's very clear.

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.

Saint said it perfectly now so I don't have to add anything to this point.

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.

I guess you hadn't read my response to Earle in the subject of Watchmen when you wrote this. There, I state better my notions of what is cheesy and what not. Unless a cheesy idea is used in a subvertive way, undermining it, which is precisely what Watchmen does every single time, it is still cheesy. The vas majority of the Batman comics I've read, and I've read a few, don't play with that subject... they just disguise it a little among more serious tones. But it is still there. Now, I don't have a problem with cheesiness when it is handled right... namely, when it takes place in a mostly cheesy enviroment. But that is simply not the case with the Nolan films, which contain cheesy elements but are mostly subtle, reflexive, subdued, grim, bittersweet... you get the idea.What I argue is that many things in Robin's style can (and should) be changed, but there are some things in his content that are inherently cheesy. In particular, the notion of a teenage boy, who doesn't go through Batman's same training intensity, being able to fight crime in Batman's style in Gotham. I refuse to that idea COMPLETELY.That's why the route I'm more willing to see is a teenage Dick Grayson that has a 7-year abroad training before becoming Robin.. which admittedly and most likely puts him out of the next sequel, and probably out of Nolan's concern. Some people aren't confortable with the idea. I am.

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

Well, you were wrong. But this is a tiring, heated debate, misunderstanding are bound to happen.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I for one have never really understood the hate that Robin gets... when you strip this character down to his basics, he is BATMAN Jr.

Maybe Batman is not supposed to be junior. Have you thought of that?

There have been some seriously BEAUTIFUL moments with Robin... as a detective, as a ninja, as an excuse for high adventure... Every incarnation of Robin has consistently kicked ass!

While I agree with the first part, the part in bold just doesn't hold any water. Every character has pros and cons in an specific storyline, and you have to consider what baggage Robin can bring to this franchise. Nolan did consider it, apparently, when he wrote Robin off as baby in the Begins years.

 

[Saint]

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.

And, in turn, what I addressed in mine. Indeed, Batman's costume and, more importantly, superpowers and a world filled with flashy heroes are precisely the elements I was referring to. What else would I have been referring to?

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.

Your argument, then, is that describing a world of superheroes, superpowers, and superhero costumes (the three elements Earle cited) as "Cheesing it up" (as you described those elements in your reply) does not read as a criticism of the fantastical elements of the genre? It may save time to tell you now that we will not agree on this point.

 

[Saint]

I guess you hadn't read my response to Earle in the subject of Watchmen when you wrote this. There, I state better my notions of what is cheesy and what not. Unless a cheesy idea is used in a subvertive way, undermining it, which is precisely what Watchmen does every single time, it is still cheesy.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. Of course, you will still find little agreement from me on most of the elements you've described as being cheese.

That's why the route I'm more willing to see is a teenage Dick Grayson that has a 7-year abroad training before becoming Robin.. which admittedly and most likely puts him out of the next sequel, and probably out of Nolan's concern. Some people aren't confortable with the idea.

I think the more practical route is to remove the traditional idea of Robin as combatant. Batman can train him, but as you say, he can't train a teenager in a short amount of time to go fight thugs on the streets of Gotham and swing off buildings. Instead, Robin could be Batman's support. Surveillance, tech support--out of sight, out of danger stuff. For dramatic and story reasons, yes, he's probably going to get involved where he shouldn't--in combat against Batman's wishes. The logical approach in a Nolan film would be to play this as Batman's mistake; Batman got him involved, and now things have escalated beyond what he expected and perhaps beyond his ability to control. Usually, people say the moral problems involved in taking on Robin as a side kick mean it shouldn't be done; I feel they are precisely the reason it should be explored.

 

[Saint]

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

What? Crime drama is, and always has been, a tremendous part of "What Batman is about." I don't know why you'd say this. Batman has always been the superhero genres attempt to fill the crime fiction niche, the way Superman fills the science fiction niche and Wonder Woman fills the fantasy niche.

Yes, Batman there are definitely other important elements to Batman, including piles of sci-fi and fantasy, but crime fiction has always been integral.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I think the more practical route is to remove the traditional idea of Robin as combatant. Batman can train him, but as you say, he can't train a teenager in a short amount of time to go fight thugs on the streets of Gotham and swing off buildings. Instead, Robin could be Batman's support. Surveillance, tech support--out of sight, out of danger stuff. For dramatic and story reasons, yes, he's probably going to get involved where he shouldn't--in combat against Batman's wishes. The logical approach in a Nolan film would be to play this as Batman's mistake; Batman got him involved, and now things have escalated beyond what he expected and perhaps beyond his ability to control. Usually, people say the moral problems involved in taking on Robin as a side kick mean it shouldn't be done; I feel they are precisely the reason it should be explored.

Now, this is a productive debate! The little faith I had in it going somewhere finally paid off. This is a terrific idea, which should lead to some grat characterization scenes for Batman, showing his less passive yet more stubborn side, in the moments he lashes out on Robin for entering an actual confrontation. "You do not fight!"

And while I still feel Robin would need much screentime for a smooth and thorough introduction, it would actually lead to a more slow transition to him becoming a full vigilante, since doing a surveillance-only type of work (much in the vein of Tim Drake's several appearances) give Batman room to still have many solo scenes.

Of course, I don't think Nolan will take on this, but for post-Nolan installments, this version of Robin is a must.

 

[Saint]

And while I still feel Robin would need much screentime for a smooth and thorough introduction, it would actually lead to a more slow transition to him becoming a full vigilante, since doing a surveillance-only type of work (much in the vein of Tim Drake's several appearances) give Batman room to still have many solo scenes.

Besides solo scenes, I think the real potential is giving Bruce Wayne (not Batman) an apprentice to share scenes with. The truth is that we don't hear lot of what Bruce thinks in these movies; people tell him stuff, he processes it and makes decisions. The first two movies are about Bruce learning; Dick gives him the opportunity to teach, and gives the audience the opportunity to hear about the philosophy of Bruce Wayne. Robin isn't just there for his own sake; as in the best of the comics, Robin is there also as a vehicle to explore the character of Bruce Wayne.

Furthermore, it gives us a great opportunity to revisit Bruce's own training as he relates it to Dick. Aside from the support skills he imparts to Dick, we can see martial arts training not as a means of preparing him to fight, but as a means of learning self-discipline.

 

[Crook]

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.

Well there's no reason for Batman to take the benches once again because of Dick. Unlike Joker, Dent, or Gordon, Grayson is inherently tied to Bruce. The development he gains throughout the movie can always be brought back around to Bruce/Batman if written to function as his extension.

It would be wise to focus on Bruce's role as a surrogate father, brother, and most importantly a teacher. The successes and failures he experiences in all three provides quite a bit of growth to the man we first saw in BB.

I think the more practical route is to remove the traditional idea of Robin as combatant. Batman can train him, but as you say, he can't train a teenager in a short amount of time to go fight thugs on the streets of Gotham and swing off buildings. Instead, Robin could be Batman's support. Surveillance, tech support--out of sight, out of danger stuff. For dramatic and story reasons, yes, he's probably going to get involved where he shouldn't--in combat against Batman's wishes. The logical approach in a Nolan film would be to play this as Batman's mistake; Batman got him involved, and now things have escalated beyond what he expected and perhaps beyond his ability to control. Usually, people say the moral problems involved in taking on Robin as a side kick mean it shouldn't be done; I feel they are precisely the reason it should be explored.

I've been a fan of the Oracle-lite approach for quite some time now, I just hope it doesn't readily approach exposing the laughable aspects of Bruce's naiveté. I would hope Bruce doesn't fully expect Dick to be so willfully appeased in watching from the sidelines. For me there has to be a point in which Bruce has tried all other courses of action so Dick does not follow in his footsteps. It would give insight to Bruce acknowledging his place in life, the acceptance of that near-destructive burden, and the rejection of promoting that lifestyle to others.

Preferably Bruce takes on a modest and socially productive modus operandi, to subvert or alleviate Dick's irascibility. A man of the law, perhaps. That'd be a nice juxtaposition and ironic twist.

 

[Mr. Earle]

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.

Example:
Odessey as it was written by Homer = Batman canon
Odessey by Nolan (no monsters or gods, focussing on realistic elements) = Batman by Nolan

And when i suggest that we put the monsters and gods back into the Odessey (hell i am not even saying Nolan should adapt Clayface or Darkseid, i am merely asking for Robin) you respond with "you re cheesing it up". Its not cheesing it up if you portray the mythos as its supposed to be.
I respect Nolan's vision, but it is too confining and forgive me if i dont think that anything that he excludes is cheesy (In fact, everything that he excludes is a lot more fun than TDK. Nice and deep movie, but i cannot watch it anymore. Its just not fun to do so.). Between BB and TDK people in here were suggesting that the Joker shouldnt wear purple because he wouldnt fit in Nolan's world. Where are those people now? The same could be said for Robin because if Nolan took the chance, i feel that he could write a great Robin.

What? Crime drama is, and always has been, a tremendous part of "What Batman is about." I don't know why you'd say this. Batman has always been the superhero genres attempt to fill the crime fiction niche, the way Superman fills the science fiction niche and Wonder Woman fills the fantasy niche.

What i meant is that Batman isnt strictly a crime drama franchise. Of course crime drama and detective stories are a major aspect of the franchise, but its still a superhero franchise. He fights clowns, penguin people, crocodile people and clay people all the time.

Obviously Batman can be adapted in a multitude of ways, but i feel that Nolan focuses on the realism and crime drama stuff too much, excluding most of the mythos out.
Batman is a detective, but he is also a superhero and frankly i think that GaiusBaltar is on the verge of suggesting that we remove the batsuit and give him a coat and fedora instead. "Because the batsuit is cheesy".

Besides solo scenes, I think the real potential is giving Bruce Wayne (not Batman) an apprentice to share scenes with. The truth is that we don't hear lot of what Bruce thinks in these movies; people tell him stuff, he processes it and makes decisions. The first two movies are about Bruce learning; Dick gives him the opportunity to teach, and gives the audience the opportunity to hear about the philosophy of Bruce Wayne. Robin isn't just there for his own sake; as in the best of the comics, Robin is there also as a vehicle to explore the character of Bruce Wayne.

Furthermore, it gives us a great opportunity to revisit Bruce's own training as he relates it to Dick. Aside from the support skills he imparts to Dick, we can see martial arts training not as a means of preparing him to fight, but as a means of learning self-discipline.

Great post!

Well there's no reason for Batman to take the benches once again because of Dick.

On the contrary i think that Bruce/Batman will have his hands full with Dick. Instead of focusing on the origin of Dent's coin, we'd be focusing on Bruce Wayne and how he deals with a kid sidekick, and one that is almost the opposite of him in character at that. I want Robin, because as Saint says, he is a way to explore Bruce Wayne even more.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Example:
Odessey as it was written by Homer = Batman canon
Odessey by Nolan (no monsters or gods, focussing on realistic elements) = Batman by Nolan

And when i suggest that we put the monsters and gods back into the Odessey (hell i am not even saying Nolan should adapt Clayface or Darkseid, i am merely asking for Robin) you respond with "you re cheesing it up". Its not cheesing it up if you portray the mythos as its supposed to be.
I respect Nolan's vision, but it is too confining and forgive me if i dont think that anything that he excludes is cheesy (In fact, everything that he excludes is a lot more fun than TDK. Nice and deep movie, but i cannot watch it anymore. Its just not fun to do so.). Between BB and TDK people in here were suggesting that the Joker shouldnt wear purple because he wouldnt fit in Nolan's world. Where are those people now? The same could be said for Robin because if Nolan took the chance, i feel that e could write a great Robin.

The Odyssey was probably written by only one man and has an internal consistency of style. The Batman mythos has been re-arranged many times over decades by dozens of writers and artists. The Odyssey is extremely difficult to adapt into film in a completely faithful form. With Batman, that task remains impossible. The best a screenwriter can do is take a portion/angle and exploit it, only working with elements that are consistent with it. Admittedly, some styles are more flexible than other, but there is always something to sacrifice and with passionate fans involved, that omething will always be of importance.

Now, you must admit that many elements in that huge mythos of Batman are undeniably cheesy. When you adapt those cheap elements into the screen (especially as they are), you're not doing anything to improve the taste and quality of the work. You could see that as being... cheesy as it is... only it's not! Robin has been excluded from huge Batman works many times before in comics and no one thought that was blasphemous. You know what? It is the screenwriters choice. To think of Nolan as someone who can work around anything is to have unrealistic expectations. Who says Nolan would make a great adaptation of Robin? Who says he knows how to handle the specific challenges the character brings? If he doesn't like it as a character, how on Earth is he going to add him to his work? For whatever reason that is, he's leaving Robin out because he has a motive. Period.

And yes, leaving the tacky elements out IS a way of cheesing it down. I, for one, am thankful someone is doing it. If the mythos, as it is, contain cheesy elements and you don't try to leave them out of your adaptation, you are cheesing it up indeed. It's only logic. What is funny is how you say you didn't find TDK fun enough, yet you think Nolan would make a great work at adapting Robin. Why would you want that? Because he's the current director and you're willing to compromise just to see Robin on the screen soon? God forbids that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The Odyssey was probably written by only one man and has an internal consistency of style. The Batman mythos has been re-arranged many times over decades by dozens of writers and artists. The Odyssey is extremely difficult to adapt into film in a completely faithful form. With Batman, that task remains impossible. The best a screenwriter can do is take a portion/angle and exploit it, only working with elements that are consistent with it. Admittedly, some styles are more flexible than other, but there is always something to sacrifice and with passionate fans involved, that omething will always be of importance.

The Odessey was told by various story tellers at the time, thus spawning many variations to the story. Homer was probably the first to write it all down, so i assume he chose the version that he knew or preferred. But that's besides the point.

As for Batman, well they could have adapted Batman in his canon world and use any part of it according to the story. Just look at BTAS. In one episode he was solving riddles and in the other he was teaming up with Superman. But Nolan has put himself in a corner and he will run out of material sooner or later. I personally think that Robin fits into his world, but other people disagree. So what's left for this batman to do? Tackle the few realistic villains remaining and be done with it?
So you see why i prefer the canon version which is unrestricted and infinite in its scope.

And yes, leaving the tacky elements out IS a way of cheesing it down. I, for one, am thankful someone is doing it. If the mythos, as it is, contain cheesy elements and you don't try to leave them out of your adaptation, you are cheesing it up indeed.

This is a comic book franchise about a guy dressing up as a bat. Why the hell are you even in here discussing it if its not what you want? Everything in it is cheesy by your standards.
So you can either accept it for what it is, or go and find what you are looking for. But dont come in here and call everything cheesy just because you think that Batman could easily star in the Godfather or Heat. You clearly want to strip it down to the 5% of its potential so that it fits your standards. You want grown up detective stories and crime drama? Go watch them and dont try to strip down batman to fit that. You're one step away from suggesting that Batman should dress in a coat and a fedora because the batsuit is cheesy.

What is funny is how you say you didn't find TDK fun enough, yet you think Nolan would make a great work at adapting Robin.

What does me not enjoying TDK all that much have to do with Nolan adapting Robin? I find BB a better comicbook/batman movie and thus more enjoyable that TDK. A movie with Robin would be more in line with BB than TDK and that's what i want.

Why would you want that? Because he's the current director and you're willing to compromise just to see Robin on the screen soon? God forbids that.

I will ignore your condescending tone and respond. I want Nolan to adapt Robin because i honestly think that he is an integral part of the mythos and that he would easily fit in the Nolanverse.

Now you, Nolan and all the other people who have read 10 comicbooks max and yet feel suited to judge the merits of Robin as a character can disagree all you want.

 

[Harleen Quinzel]

Isn't it a little early in Batman's career to add Robin? Robin came along when he calmed down a bit, and was more used to it.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Okay, I know this part was last but it came totally out of the blue for me so I'm going to address it first:

I will ignore your condescending tone and respond. I want Nolan to adapt Robin because i honestly think that he is an integral part of the mythos and that he would easily fit in the Nolanverse.

Now you, Nolan and all the other people who have read 10 comicbooks max and yet feel suited to judge the merits of Robin as a character can disagree all you want.

Let me get this straight: You, Mr. Earle, are calling me condescending? That sounded condescending to you? Oookay.

Look, everybody sounds condescending when they think they're right and the person they're talking to isn't. You do it in other parts of this thread in quit unfortunate ways. Don't let it go to your head. Am I being patronizing by stating opinions I believe in? I don't know. But I can't stop every two seconds to mind my "tone" for the sake of your sensitivity.

Having said that, note that I wasn't being rethorical when I asked you about compromise. It was a genuine question... I wouldn't want to see Nolan tackle characters dear to me that I'm not sure he could handle. It's puzzling to see a guy heavily criticize the way Nolan carries his adaptation and then say he trusts a good Robin can come out of that. Like Saint said, it's about changing Robin's style, not Nolan's. If you're not happy with other small compromises, how come you're fine with this one? I wouldn't, and I ask that real question only to get an attitude instead. Like I said: puzzling.

BTW, the comics count? Wrong. I get it, you want to appeal to an argument of authority and look all-knowing about "the way Batman really", but you're barking at the wrong tree. My deal is not lack of comics experience; it's that I take critical distance and get what I like and what I don't about them. I'm sure you have that too, the Batman universe is not always very specific and even a connaisseur like you can "crime drama" is not what Batman is really about. Yet you were partially wrong.

Now, the rest of the post.

As for Batman, well they could have adapted Batman in his canon world and use any part of it according to the story. Just look at BTAS. In one episode he was solving riddles and in the other he was teaming up with Superman. But Nolan has put himself in a corner and he will run out of material sooner or later. I personally think that Robin fits into his world, but other people disagree. So what's left for this batman to do? Tackle the few realistic villains remaining and be done with it?
So you see why i prefer the canon version which is unrestricted and infinite in its scope.

Remember my big rant about creative limitations before? I guess you do, so I will just give you a quick rundown: They are good. They add focus and a sense of knowing where it's going.

In a never-ending episodic format like printed comics, you can't have many limitations. So you gotta keep adding stuff. There's no alternative. But in a film series (with an initial three acts story, like the one we're seeing now) you can avoid that and have a really focused narrative that doesn't spawn for decades and can actually be told in three films.

We're in the final film of that initial origin story and we all Robin takes a lot of time to be introduced, so he may very well not make the cut and that's reasonable. Plus, Robin best stories take place in a world much different from Nolan's. It's not an argument on the quality of the character... it's about the quality of the ADAPTATION. Nolan won't run out of material because, unlike comics writer, he doesn't have to keep introducing stuff to keep his material fresh... He probably just has THREE films? In such little time, the best you can do is keep a really tight focus and not try to cram everything in.

So, why are you making it now Nolanverse vs. Canon?

This is a comic book franchise about a guy dressing up as a bat. Why the hell are you even in here discussing it if its not what you want? Everything in it is cheesy by your standards. So you can either accept it for what it is, or go and find what you are looking for. But dont come in here and call everything cheesy just because you think that Batman could easily star in the Godfather or Heat. You clearly want to strip it down to the 5% of its potential so that it fits your standards. You want grown up detective stories and crime drama? Go watch them and dont try to strip down batman to fit that. You're one step away from suggesting that Batman should dress in a coat and a fedora because the batsuit is cheesy.

Hmm, nice rant. See, now I have to question your reading skills. Show me, right now, where did I say any of that? Wake me up when you're done.

It's in moments like this I must be condescending. I'll try to ignore your tone and give you my real take on the matter in crystal clear terms you cannot misinterpret.

I just don't think the batsuit is cheesy when they work around it and make it a window to Batman's peculiar psyche, when they don't make him a hero paradigm and show that suit is also a real window to his deeply unresolved issues. And also when it's not only about having a cool image but also about function, purpose and slight traumas. They do that most of the time, luckily. It's subvertive stuff like that, in the same vein of Watchmen, that doesn't make it cheesy. All that deconstructive stuff is what prevents the Batman suit from being tacky, as opposed to most other superhero suits which are just taken for granted.

There, that was me doing my best no to sink to that angry level.

 

[Saint]

I've been a fan of the Oracle-lite approach for quite some time now, I just hope it doesn't readily approach exposing the laughable aspects of Bruce's naiveté. I would hope Bruce doesn't fully expect Dick to be so willfully appeased in watching from the sidelines. For me there has to be a point in which Bruce has tried all other courses of action so Dick does not follow in his footsteps. It would give insight to Bruce acknowledging his place in life, the acceptance of that near-destructive burden, and the rejection of promoting that lifestyle to others.

Preferably Bruce takes on a modest and socially productive modus operandi, to subvert or alleviate Dick's irascibility. A man of the law, perhaps. That'd be a nice juxtaposition and ironic twist.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Let me get this straight: You, Mr. Earle, are calling me condescending? That sounded condescending to you? Oookay.

Look, everybody sounds condescending when they think they're right and the person they're talking to isn't. You do it in other parts of this thread in quit unfortunate ways. Don't let it go to your head. Am I being patronizing by stating opinions I believe in? I don't know. But I can't stop every two seconds to mind my "tone" for the sake of your sensitivity.

I am often condescing, i know that. But here it was you who was condescending. Relax, i wasnt trying to offend you.

It's puzzling to see a guy heavily criticize the way Nolan carries his adaptation and then say he trusts a good Robin can come out of that. Like Saint said, it's about changing Robin's style, not Nolan's. If you're not happy with other small compromises, how come you're fine with this one?

Because i like how Nolan writes and how he treats the franchise in many ways. I just dont like the realism of his vision, which in my opinion was heightened going from BB to TDK. I loved BB but TDK, for all its depth left me less impressed. I loved the writing, the characters, i just didnt like how it all felt like Heat 2.
So i am not asking for Nolan to completely change his style, but rather to go back to his Begins ways. IMHO, he could easily adapt Robin in a movie similar to Begins in vision. And i really think that he could write a good story about him, just like he wrote a fantastic Joker and TwoFace.

BTW, the comics count? Wrong. I get it, you want to appeal to an argument of authority and look all-knowing about "the way Batman really", but you're barking at the wrong tree. My deal is not lack of comics experience; it's that I take critical distance and get what I like and what I don't about them. I'm sure you have that too, the Batman universe is not always very specific and even a connaisseur like you can "crime drama" is not what Batman is really about. Yet you were partially wrong.

I am not trying to pose as a connoisseur by saying that i read comics. All i am saying is that a great deal of posters in here have never picked up a comic book about their favourite superhero and yet somehow they know what works and what doesnt, basing their opinion on what they ve seen in movies.
I dont know where you fall in this, but i trully think that Nolan falls in this one. He isnt a true Batman fan, he only read the comicbooks he felt suited his style and he hasnt followed the character long enough to form an educated opinion. His opinion is based on: "Goyer proposed these comics to me, i read them and liked X,Y,Z. Robin doesnt work because Schumacher screwed up and i am scared to adapt him. Also i am a seriouz director you guys, i do serious movies, please take me seriously, no robin, no unrealism".
The guy was about to give us a Batman with no cape or grapple gun because of teh realisms!

Remember my big rant about creative limitations before? I guess you do, so I will just give you a quick rundown: They are good. They add focus and a sense of knowing where it's going.

In a never-ending episodic format like printed comics, you can't have many limitations. So you gotta keep adding stuff. There's no alternative. But in a film series (with an initial three acts story, like the one we're seeing now) you can avoid that and have a really focused narrative that doesn't spawn for decades and can actually be told in three films.

I agree, with all except where you presume to know that this is supposedly a trilogy. Nolan could sign for 2 more movies for all we know.
And anyway, we re too early in his career to end the story in the third film. Unless Batman stops for some reason, the 3rd movie will end with the premise that Batman will always be guarding Gotham, therefore the story will be unfinished. This specific arc about his origin could be over, but the rest of his career would be left open to exploration.

We're in the final film of that initial origin story and we all Robin takes a lot of time to be introduced, so he may very well not make the cut and that's reasonable. Plus, Robin best stories take place in a world much different from Nolan's. It's not an argument on the quality of the character... it's about the quality of the ADAPTATION.

Agreed. But Robin could be a nice way to end the trilogy by showing Batman settling in, having his batfamily and training his heir who brings balance to his life. Just saying.

Nolan won't run out of material because, unlike comics writer, he doesn't have to keep introducing stuff to keep his material fresh... He probably just has THREE films? In such little time, the best you can do is keep a really tight focus and not try to cram everything in.

But sooner or later WB will want to make more Batman movies and they will have to start over. So why not continue from where Nolan left off? He established a great origin story from where the story could build up. His overuse of realism and killing Twoface and Ras (maybe he could come back with a Lazarus Pit) are the only obstacles for that.
Why cant i see Arkham filling up with the rogues gallery from where they can pick them and make new stories? Why cant i see a Batman maturing over the course of the movies? Why do we have to start over?

I just don't think the batsuit is cheesy when they work around it and make it a window to Batman's peculiar psyche, when they don't make him a hero paradigm and show that suit is also a real window to his deeply unresolved issues. And also when it's not only about having a cool image but also about function, purpose and slight traumas. They do that most of the time, luckily. It's subvertive stuff like that, in the same vein of Watchmen, that doesn't make it cheesy.

All that applies but he is still a costumed hero in a world of costumed heroes. Why is that cheesy but Watchmen isnt?

All that deconstructive stuff is what prevents the Batman suit from being tacky, as opposed to most other superhero suits which are just taken for granted.

Superman's suit is based on Kryptonian clothing and is flashy so that he serves as a beacon, as a living flag. Same with captain america's. WW's suit is the traditional suit worn by the champion of the amazons. Green Arrow's suit is a typical Robin Hood/archer suit. Wth are you talking about? Just because they throw in a rationalization for the suit, it doesnt change the fact that its a grey suit with underpants on top and a bat drawn on his chest. That isnt cheesy?

There, that was me doing my best no to sink to that angry level.

Thanks. t:

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Because i like how Nolan writes and how he treats the franchise in many ways. I just dont like the realism of his vision, which in my opinion was heightened going from BB to TDK. I loved BB but TDK, for all its depth left me less impressed. I loved the writing, the characters, i just didnt like how it all felt like Heat 2.
So i am not asking for Nolan to completely change his style, but rather to go back to his Begins ways. IMHO, he could easily adapt Robin in a movie similar to Begins in vision. And i really think that he could write a good story about him, just like he wrote a fantastic Joker and TwoFace.

Have you thought such level of realism was one of the factors the enabled Nolan to make those characters fantastic? And really, was it that realistic? I saw Nolan make many concessions on that and you know he did.

I dont know where you fall in this, but i trully think that Nolan falls in this one. He isnt a true Batman fan, he only read the comicbooks he felt suited his style and he hasnt followed the character long enough to form an educated opinion. His opinion is based on: "Goyer proposed these comics to me, i read them and liked X,Y,Z. Robin doesnt work because Schumacher screwed up and i am scared to adapt him. Also i am a seriouz director you guys, i do serious movies, please take me seriously, no robin, no unrealism".

See, it's wild exaggerations like this that make you difficult to argue with. Nolan included puns in his movies, great and wild actions scenes, fun sequences... but most importantly, you can see direct references and characters where the respect for the material shows. And I cannot imagine him doing that without an extensive previous research. That respect doesn't come from reading "10 comic books". It comes from having read a lot and still retain a filtering/discriminating opinion about them. Isn't he a true Batman fan? Who are you to say that? What makes you think knowing the character longer makes you know better the way it works? In this boards I've seen opinions from people who have read comics most of their life and they cannot get what Batman and its characters are about more than what Nolan showed in his movies. How can you adapt a character like the Joker so thoroughly and not get the material? This exxagerations of yours seem extremely biased, at least.

The guy was about to give us a Batman with no cape or grapple gun because of teh realisms!

Yet, lo and behold, he didn't. I prefer a sensible noob to a zealot veteran.

I agree, with all except where you presume to know that this is supposedly a trilogy. Nolan could sign for 2 more movies for all we know.

That's whay I always say "probably" when discussing that. Admittedly, one more movie is less a stretch than two, knowing Batman has not even signed for a third and how traditional trilogies are in big studio films.

Agreed. But Robin could be a nice way to end the trilogy by showing Batman settling in, having his batfamily and training his heir who brings balance to his life. Just saying.

If you do that without taking away from other more pressing elements, I think all we would get is a Robin cameo. I don't want Nolan to do anything with the character if it's going to limit in any way the work of a director more committed to the character. Besides, Nolan has said he doesn't think in terms of sequels. His big finale will probably be less specific than that.

But sooner or later WB will want to make more Batman movies and they will have to start over. So why not continue from where Nolan left off? He established a great origin story from where the story could build up.

Totally agreed. But this thread is called "Nolan... add Robin". Make a thread called "WB... don't forget Robin!" and I'll vote Yes.

His overuse of realism and killing Twoface and Ras (maybe he could come back with a Lazarus Pit) are the only obstacles for that.

There are contrived yet valid plot points for other director to take chances for them. And another reboot to allow more creative freedom is not out of the question.

Why cant i see Arkham filling up with the rogues gallery from where they can pick them and make new stories? Why cant i see a Batman maturing over the course of the movies? Why do we have to start over?

I... don't... know? What are you saying all this?

All that applies but he is still a costumed hero in a world of costumed heroes. Why is that cheesy but Watchmen isnt?

I've explained this more than one time, retrace my comments on the matter. It was all about subversive intention.

Superman's suit is based on Kryptonian clothing and is flashy so that he serves as a beacon, as a living flag.

So it happens that Kryptonian clothing was fabulously heroic and tacky, and made their beautiful just-like-human appearance look strong and paradigmatic, even having knight-like emblems.
Really, way too coincidental, way too on-your-face, way too cheesy.

Same with captain america's.

The second paradigm of über-cheesiness, probably just behind Green Arrow.

WW's suit is the traditional suit worn by the champion of the amazons.

Same explanation than with Superman.

Green Arrow's suit is a typical Robin Hood/archer suit.

I know... ugh.

Wth are you talking about? Just because they throw in a rationalization for the suit, it doesnt change the fact that its a grey suit with underpants on top and a bat drawn on his chest. That isnt cheesy?

All those suits throw bad excuses to justify their tackiness. Bad excuses. That's what I prefer Batman's explanation... at least it comes from a human mind with many flaws.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Have you thought such level of realism was one of the factors the enabled Nolan to make those characters fantastic?

Perhaps. I think it was mostly down to good writing and not realism. Of course realism helps prevent the general audience from rolling their eyes so that explains why Nolan's movies are so successful apart from their good writing. Grant Morrison's amazing Batman stories could never be adapted on the big screen.

See, it's wild exaggerations like this that make you difficult to argue with. Nolan included puns in his movies, great and wild actions scenes, fun sequences... but most importantly, you can see direct references and characters where the respect for the material shows. And I cannot imagine him doing that without an extensive previous research. That respect doesn't come from reading "10 comic books". It comes from having read a lot and still retain a filtering/discriminating opinion about them. Isn't he a true Batman fan? Who are you to say that? What makes you think knowing the character longer makes you know better the way it works? In this boards I've seen opinions from people who have read comics most of their life and they cannot get what Batman and its characters are about more than what Nolan showed in his movies. How can you adapt a character like the Joker so thoroughly and not get the material? This exxagerations of yours seem extremely biased, at least.

I am sure he's read comic books, and i am sure he gets the characters he writes about, but that doesnt mean he loves the franchise or that he has followed it beyond what is necessary for his movies. It just seems to me that Schumacher's fiasco and the general predisposition that Robin is cheesy are responsible for the way he is avoiding him.

Yet, lo and behold, he didn't. I prefer a sensible noob to a zealot veteran

He didnt because Goyer convinced him otherwise. Its fine if you choose a specific angle from which to look at the franchise (Dini telling street level stories for example), but sometimes i feel that Nolan was almost embarrassed to be associated with a comicbook franchise. Stripping Batman of his cape and grapple gun? I mean, come on...

There are contrived yet valid plot points for other director to take chances for them. And another reboot to allow more creative freedom is not out of the question.

I just had hopes that someone could take over after Nolan leaves and continue telling Batman's stories so that we would be able to see him evolve, mature, adopt Robin, age, hell, maybe even step aside because of age and give the mantle to Dick.
But then TDK came and was so damn realistic that it closed all the doors. There is little left to do in such a restricted vision and i am sure that Nolan wont allow anyone to pick up his Batman when he leaves.

But look at Marvel. They are setting up their Marvelverse, close enough to the canon, and you know it will continue as long its profitable, even if they have to recast or change directors and creative teams. Writers and artists change in comics all the time.
But WB is bowing to Nolan, letting him do whatever he wants because they trust him and they have no idea what they re doing. Its fortunate that Nolan helms batman, because the success is completely down to him and not WB/DC. If they could handle their franchises as Marvel seems to be, they could start their own DCverse and establish all their big players, give us cameos (especially of heroes who could never support their own movie, i.e. Black Canary in a Batman movie), team ups, a Justice League movie, etc.

I... don't... know? What are you saying all this?

I am saying that after these glorious movies about Batman's first years, the story should go on, Gotham should keep filling up with freaks and so on. The alternative is Snyder adapting what else, TDKR page by page, or some director doing another trilogy in a different setting (maybe Batman will move from Chicago to Detroit or LA, who knows? ), with a different batman. Why not evolve the current one beyond his first year?

So it happens that Kryptonian clothing was fabulously heroic and tacky, and made their beautiful just-like-human appearance look strong and paradigmatic, even having knight-like emblems.
Really, way too coincidental, way too on-your-face, way too cheesy.

All those suits throw bad excuses to justify their tackiness. Bad excuses. That's what I prefer Batman's explanation... at least it comes from a human mind with many flaws.

You know damn well that first they design the suit and then they rationalize it. What's the problem with other heroes' suits? Why is Superman cheesy but batman isnt? If anything he looks nothing like a giant bat. Especially with the yellow belt and yellow emblem on his chest.

 

[Saint]

Double post.

 

[Saint]

With regards to the absurdity of superhero costumes, the reality is that people wear stupid, silly looking crap everywhere, all over the globe. Ideas about acceptable fashion come from all over the place. In a world with costume heroes emerging in WWII, no, I do not find it all ridiculous to think that superheroic fashion trends would evolve. Really, underwear outside the pants is not inherently any more ludicrous than people jamming metal piercings into their mouths or stretching out their earlobes. There is an argument that some trends would simply be impractical (capes, for example) for certain heroes, and that is something that should be considered, depending on the level of reality involved in the story being designed. However, if practicality was the rule, Batman would not wear a cape, so we can probably agree that liberties must be taken. Because, well, capes are cool. People wearing lightning bolts on their chests and wrapping themselves in flags are cool, too. Sufficiently explain where the fashion comes from, and make the compromise of removing or altering elements you can't explain, and you won't have the problem of cheesiness or tackiness. Obviously, one must also consider the appropriateness of the elements for the universe and visual style in that specific interpretation.

Incidentally, the best explanation for Superman's costume has always been that Martha made it based on Kryptonian clothing, with the influence of the human designer explaining the fact that it conforms to superheroic convention.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Actually, historically, superhero fashion is derived from late 19th & early 20th century CIRCUS ATTIRE. Circus performers dressed in capes and flashy outfits to add to the look and overall mystique of the circus!

Circus people were often thought abnormal, inhuman or unusually strong, so characters from the pulp magazines & later with SUPERMAN wore these fashions!

 

[terry78]

Zorro.

 

[Saint]

Actually, historically, superhero fashion is derived from late 19th & early 20th century CIRCUS ATTIRE. Circus performers dressed in capes and flashy outfits to add to the look and overall mystique of the circus!

Circus people were often thought abnormal, inhuman or unusually strong, so characters from the pulp magazines & later with SUPERMAN wore these fashions!

Sure, but I'm referring to how these trends would emerge in the fictional world, not in ours.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

but in a realistic fictional world, trends would have to be as close to our world as possible.