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

[terry78]

The thing is, Dick reminds Bruce of himself, that's where the whole dynamic comes from. At first, Bruce doesn't think anyone else has felt that pain he has or should carry a burden of protecting the city from nuts, but when he sees that Dick has that exact same drive and motivation due to him losing family like he did, something clicks. You can either play it as him being reluctant to bring him on board, or actually being enthused, but maybe a little TOO enthused.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I'm sure you noticed my last point..

Sorry, i didnt catch this:

pseudo parent relationship thing tho.

at the end of your post. My bad.

So you think their relationship is a fake one?

 

[Bruce Malone]

No i mean its debatable what bruce's relationship to dick or the other robins is. I believe dick was only his "ward" at first. To me parent conjures up images of teaching riding a bike or throwing around a baseball.

I'm not sure that was the relationship bruce had. Also the robins always seems to turn into teens reaally fast. Damian goes from like 10 to fourteen or something in one year?

 

[El Payaso]

Unless Fox or Alfred are his adoptive sons i dont see how that's true.

You're right. But the last thing Batman needs is a son, adoptive or not.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No i mean its debatable what bruce's relationship to dick or the other robins is. I believe dick was only his "ward" at first. To me parent conjures up images of teaching riding a bike or throwing around a baseball.

I'm not sure that was the relationship bruce had. Also the robins always seems to turn into teens reaally fast. Damian goes from like 10 to fourteen or something in one year?

I think that Dick was his ward at first, but both he and Tim were adopted by him at some point. Now, do you expect the goddamn Batman to teach his sons how to ride a bicycle? He teaches them how to throw batarangs which is the equivalent of riding bikes in the bat family.

But really, if you read some stories with Robin, you'll see that they really are a family and love each other. But they are the bat family so it isnt exactly a normal family.

Damian was and still is 10.

You're right. But the last thing Batman needs is a son, adoptive or not.

The comics say otherwise.
Tim deduced Batman's and Robin's identities and when Jason died he saw Batman spiral out of control, so he walked up to him and told him that he needs a Robin because he keeps him balanced. Tim convinced the goddamn Batman that he needs him and he took him in and trained him.

Not to mention the whole son/family thing.

 

[Saint]

You're right. But the last thing Batman needs is a son, adoptive or not.

When you say stuff like this, I imagine somebody saying "The last thing Superman needs is Lois Lane," or perhaps "The last thing Luke Skywalker needs is to meet Ben Kenobi," and I enjoy a good laugh. Indeed, the last thing Batman needs is a relationship that has defined his character for seventy years.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Nays.

Let the next director of future Bat-films add him.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Unless Fox or Alfred are his adoptive sons i dont see how that's true.

Or are reflections of himself, victims of similar tragedies. He can't make Fox OR Alfred do something they don't agree with.

 

[Dr. Sid Jawtug]

He'll probably be added in the 4th and killed off at the end by our new Joker. Anythings possible!

 

[COMPO]

he'd only be killed off if its Jason Todd, and I get the feeling they'll go with Dick Grayson and try and get his character right, like B:TAS.

 

[atila9323]

Robin? NOT!

 

[El Payaso]

The comics say otherwise.

Yes, I have noticed. It's like comics and movies are different media.

Tim deduced Batman's and Robin's identities and when Jason died he saw Batman spiral out of control, so he walked up to him and told him that he needs a Robin because he keeps him balanced. Tim convinced the goddamn Batman that he needs him and he took him in and trained him.

So Batman needs a kid next to him to keep balance. With so many superheroes that don't need such a thing and can keep balance or give a good fight to do it - like Spiderman whose 'father' was also killed - I'd say Batman was at least as capable as them of such thing.

And Batman being convinced by a kid? I really hope we'll get a more mature self-confident version of him.

Not to mention the whole son/family thing.

Yes, what has nothing to do with a character like Batman.

When you say stuff like this, I imagine somebody saying "The last thing Superman needs is Lois Lane," or perhaps "The last thing Luke Skywalker needs is to meet Ben Kenobi," and I enjoy a good laugh.

Oh, I would do also. You cannot but enjoy th absurdity of the last two sentences.

So far the best filmic versions of Batman haven't had Robin in them. We cannot say the same about Superman-Lois Lane and Luke-Ben Kenobi in movies.

Indeed, the last thing Batman needs is a relationship that has defined his character for seventy years.

It hasn't defined him as much as just put some material for new stories. But in movies Batman is solidly defined without a Robin. Batman needs as much son as he needs Bat-myte.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yes, I have noticed. It's like comics and movies are different media.

So fantasy stories can be adapted just fine but superhero stories (who are fantasy after all) cant? Let's remove Legolas from LOTR. He doesnt do much besides shooting arrows anyway...

So Batman needs a kid next to him to keep balance. With so many superheroes that don't need such a thing and can keep balance or give a good fight to do it - like Spiderman whose 'father' was also killed - I'd say Batman was at least as capable as them of such thing.

But Batman is the one walking closer to the line. He needs people to keep him from crossing it.
And in any case, Spiderman never had a Robin. Batman does and he is in the top 5 most important characters of the mythos.

And Batman being convinced by a kid? I really hope we'll get a more mature self-confident version of him.

Because a brilliant kid with an IQ almost as high as the goddamn Batman's cant be right and Batman wrong. Batgod much?
Tim has a brilliant mind and Bruce has admitted that one day he'll be an even greater detective than him.

Yes, what has nothing to do with a character like Batman.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

The Robins are Batman's sons in everything but the biological sense. You need to read more Batman comics. Seriously.

So far the best filmic versions of Batman haven't had Robin in them. We cannot say the same about Superman-Lois Lane and Luke-Ben Kenobi in movies.

And the value of the character is judged by how well some directors adapted him on screen? Because i can make the same arguement with Ras pre Begins:
"So far no good Batman movie had Ras. MORE JOKERZ"

Besides was the failure of the Schumacher movies Robin's fault? He was one of the best things in Forever.

It hasn't defined him as much as just put some material for new stories. But in movies Batman is solidly defined without a Robin. Batman needs as much son as he needs Bat-myte.

That's it! GTFO and go read some comics. Everybody nowadays is a Batman expert because he watched the movies and read The Long Halloween.

 

[El Payaso]

So fantasy stories can be adapted just fine but superhero stories (who are fantasy after all) cant? Let's remove Legolas from LOTR. He doesnt do much besides shooting arrows anyway...

It seems that fantasy and superheroes have things in common but they're just not quite the same. Like comics and movies. I mean I'd hate to have 'magic' as a common thing in Batman's universe.

But Batman is the one walking closer to the line. He needs people to keep him from crossing it.

No he doesn't. The fact he's walking closer to the line doesn't make him weak anough to need an adviser. And if he needs one let's make it someone more mature than him not just some child.

And in any case, Spiderman never had a Robin. Batman does and he is in the top 5 most important characters of the mythos.

Ah yes, the old argument: it is in the comics so we have to have him in the movies.

Because a brilliant kid with an IQ almost as high as the goddamn Batman's cant be right and Batman wrong. Batgod much?
Tim has a brilliant mind and Bruce has admitted that one day he'll be an even greater detective than him.

Great! We actually should have the IQ kid running the show and Batman just getting orders from him. Since he's smarter than Batman that makes sense. It sounds so interesting we must try it.

Personally I still prefer the smart enough Batman that can be his own boss.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
The Robins are Batman's sons in everything but the biological sense. You need to read more Batman comics. Seriously.

I clear myself up: Sons - in the biological sense or not - have nothing to do with a character like Batman.

And the value of the character is judged by how well some directors adapted him on screen?

I said "the best directors." Otherwise we could be judging from what Schumacher did, see?

I said the best directors because they have been able to extract the best of Batman so far.

Because i can make the same arguement with Ras pre Begins:
"So far no good Batman movie had Ras. MORE JOKERZ"

No, you can't. Because the best directors of those superheroic characters have included such secondary characters. We cannot say the same about Robin and the best Batman directors. Ra's had not previous incarnation to judge him. Robin had.

Besides was the failure of the Schumacher movies Robin's fault? He was one of the best things in Forever.

Yes, when you put some bad ideas next to worse ones, they look not so bad. It's not a great argument though.

But in any case, Dick Grayson was good in BF, not Robin and his Holy/Holey jokes.

That's it! GTFO and go read some comics. Everybody nowadays is a Batman expert because he watched the movies and read The Long Halloween.

Some others are experts because they read the comics, which has disabled them from recognizing what works from what doesn't. There's just what's in the comics vs what's not.

 

[weezerspider]

It seems that fantasy and superheroes have things in common but they're just not quite the same. Like comics and movies. I mean I'd hate to have 'magic' as a common thing in Batman's universe.



No he doesn't. The fact he's walking closer to the line doesn't make him weak anough to need an adviser. And if he needs one let's make it someone more mature than him not just some child.



Ah yes, the old argument: it is in the comics so we have to have him in the movies.



Great! We actually should have the IQ kid running the show and Batman just getting orders from him. Since he's smarter than Batman that makes sense. It sounds so interesting we must try it.

Personally I still prefer the smart enough Batman that can be his own boss.



I clear myself up: Sons - in the biological sense or not - have nothing to do with a character like Batman.



I said "the best directors." Otherwise we could be judging from what Schumacher did, see?

I said the best directors because they have been able to extract the best of Batman so far.



No, you can't. Because the best directors of those superheroic characters have included such secondary characters. We cannot say the same about Robin and the best Batman directors. Ra's had not previous incarnation to judge him. Robin had.



Yes, when you put some bad ideas next to worse ones, they look not so bad. It's not a great argument though.

But in any case, Dick Grayson was good in BF, not Robin and his Holy/Holey jokes.



Some others are experts because they read the comics, which has disabled them from recognizing what works from what doesn't. There's just what's in the comics vs what's not.

Agree with everything you've said. Besides, Robin just wouldn't work in Nolan's universe. I'm not saying we'll never see Robin in a good Batman movie. I'm just saying it won't and shouldn't happen with Nolan at the helm.

 

[Saint]

Oh, I would do also. You cannot but enjoy th absurdity of the last two sentences.

Good, then you should recognize the absurdity of your argument.

So far the best filmic versions of Batman haven't had Robin in them. We cannot say the same about Superman-Lois Lane and Luke-Ben Kenobi in movies.

Meaningless, in the same way that "All the best Batman movies haven't had the Riddler in them" is meaningless.

It hasn't defined him as much as just put some material for new stories.

These are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, though, anyone who claims that Robin is has not been a defining influence for Batman's character virtually since his inception A) knows nothing of the character, or B) is being willfully dishonest. In your case, it's almost certainly B. That being the case, the sum of my interest in your thoughts on the matter rapidly approaches zero.

 

[Bruce Malone]

So fantasy stories can be adapted just fine but superhero stories (who are fantasy after all) cant? Let's remove Legolas from LOTR. He doesnt do much besides shooting arrows anyway...
But Batman is the one walking closer to the line. He needs people to keep him from crossing it.
And in any case, Spiderman never had a Robin. Batman does and he is in the top 5 most important characters of the mythos.
Because a brilliant kid with an IQ almost as high as the goddamn Batman's cant be right and Batman wrong. Batgod much?
Tim has a brilliant mind and Bruce has admitted that one day he'll be an even greater detective than him.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

The Robins are Batman's sons in everything but the biological sense. You need to read more Batman comics. Seriously.
And the value of the character is judged by how well some directors adapted him on screen? Because i can make the same arguement with Ras pre Begins:
"So far no good Batman movie had Ras. MORE JOKERZ"

Besides was the failure of the Schumacher movies Robin's fault? He was one of the best things in Forever.
That's it! GTFO and go read some comics. Everybody nowadays is a Batman expert because he watched the movies and read The Long Halloween.

And in the films he has like i stated both Alfred and Lucious who do both just that not to mention dawes to an extent.

In the comic batman can get away with bringing along young boys into horribly dangerous situations. Becuase in the comic world 10 years have to ability to go toe to toe with 200 pound thugs.

If what batman does in the comics were depicted on film he'd appear as a totally iresponsoble reprehensible person. Putting children in the situations he does.

That's why i hesitate to use the term "parent" with batman, he'd be a horrible parent in real life. He pretty much robs the Robins out of a child-hood.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Great! We actually should have the IQ kid running the show and Batman just getting orders from him. Since he's smarter than Batman that makes sense. It sounds so interesting we must try it.

Nobody said Tim is smarter than Batman. But he is smart. And who said he's the boss? He is the sidekick for Christ's sake. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Personally I still prefer the smart enough Batman that can be his own boss.

Like Nolan's, right?

I said "the best directors." Otherwise we could be judging from what Schumacher did, see?

I said the best directors because they have been able to extract the best of Batman so far.

And since the best directors have extracted the best out of the mythos, we shouldnt bother with Robin, the rest of the rogue's gallery, Bullock, Montoya, etc.
Great arguements!

No, you can't. Because the best directors of those superheroic characters have included such secondary characters. We cannot say the same about Robin and the best Batman directors. Ra's had not previous incarnation to judge him. Robin had.

So you'll judge Robin based on what Schumacher did. You should have done that with Two-Face:
"No, Twoface sucks. Batman Forever proves it. Dont adapt him Nolan!"

But in any case, Dick Grayson was good in BF, not Robin and his Holy/Holey jokes.

Because Nolan's one liners were better.

Some others are experts because they read the comics, which has disabled them from recognizing what works from what doesn't. There's just what's in the comics vs what's not.

But you definitely dont read the comics.

These are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, though, anyone who claims that Robin is has not been a defining influence for Batman's character virtually since his inception A) knows nothing of the character, or B) is being willfully dishonest. In your case, it's almost certainly B. That being the case, the sum of my interest in your thoughts on the matter rapidly approaches zero.

When you're right, you're right.

If what batman does in the comics were depicted on film he'd appear as a totally iresponsoble reprehensible person. Putting children in the situations he does.

That's why i hesitate to use the term "parent" with batman, he'd be a horrible parent in real life. He pretty much robs the Robins out of a child-hood.

Because putting on a suit and fighting crime makes sense? Its how the genre works. Anyone who knows martial arts can fight crime, even toddlers.

 

[Drz]

If what batman does in the comics were depicted on film he'd appear as a totally iresponsoble reprehensible person. Putting children in the situations he does.

That's why i hesitate to use the term "parent" with batman, he'd be a horrible parent in real life. He pretty much robs the Robins out of a child-hood.

He's already pretty much shown as a possible dual-personality issues and whatnot. Him taking Dick Grayson and training him would pretty much be a daring and bold move to show fightning crime isn't simply about a hero being the shining good guy and the bad guy being bastardly evil. You're pretty much telling us that Hollywood can't allow to show such controversy regarding Batman, yet everyone here is more or less okay with Tim Burton's Batman being a murdering psycho that Gotham city sees as a hero.

 

[Bruce Malone]

He's already pretty much shown as a possible dual-personality issues and whatnot. Him taking Dick Grayson and training him would pretty much be a daring and bold move to show fightning crime isn't simply about a hero being the shining good guy and the bad guy being bastardly evil. You're pretty much telling us that Hollywood can't allow to show such controversy regarding Batman, yet everyone here is more or less okay with Tim Burton's Batman being a murdering psycho that Gotham city sees as a hero.

The thing is in the comic there is no controversy about that really. Like i said before in comic world 10 year olds can stand toe to toe in fights with adults in battles.

In a film yes there would be controversy about depicting a grown man putting a boy on the streets to fight crime, but why even bring that controversy up? there's no need.

Putting robin on film is almost a lose-lose situation. In one scenario you actually get a real kid on film with batman and it looks rediculous.

The other is the batman forever route where you cast an older actor to play robin but it ends up looking like one man is adopting a younger man.

 

[Drz]

In a film yes there would be controversy about depicting a grown man putting a boy on the streets to fight crime, but why even bring that controversy up? there's no need.

Maybe Nolan finds an idea to use for Robin? Kick-Ass is getting alot of positive buzz and that has teenagers (and a 11 year old).

Putting robin on film is almost a lose-lose situation. In one scenario you actually get a real kid on film with batman and it looks rediculous.

An assumption and an opinion.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Putting robin on film is almost a lose-lose situation. In one scenario you actually get a real kid on film with batman and it looks rediculous.

The whole concept of Batman is ridiculous. He is a man dressed as a bat that fight crime in a world with evil space gods, alien vampires, people with magic rings, and witches. And in this crazy world, kid sidekicks are normal. Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Flash and others have had at least one.

Isnt LotR ridiculous in that instead of gettting an army, or hell the best warrior around to get the ring to Mordor they gave it to a little hobbit who for some reason was the only person that the ring couldnt temp too much? Doesnt make sense, does it?

Or how about that Flash guy? He supposedly can run faster than the speed of light but he doesnt burn out from the friction because of some "speed force" bullcrap. UNREALISTIC!

EVERYTHING must make sense in the real world, or else it cant work. Comics, books and cinema are different media and yet you can adapt a book word for word, but you cant adapt a comic book that way? Anyway, i'm done defending Robin against guys who only know the mythos from the movies and BTAS. I'll wait for the moment that Nolan or some other director adapts Robin successfully and you'll all be like: "I told you Robin would work!"

 

[Chris Wallace]

First I flex on Robin, then costumes, what next?

 

[Bruce Malone]

The whole concept of Batman is ridiculous. He is a man dressed as a bat that fight crime in a world with evil space gods, alien vampires, people with magic rings, and witches. And in this crazy world, kid sidekicks are normal. Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Flash and others have had at least one.

Isnt LotR ridiculous in that instead of gettting an army, or hell the best warrior around to get the ring to Mordor they gave it to a little hobbit who for some reason was the only person that the ring couldnt temp too much? Doesnt make sense, does it?

Or how about that Flash guy? He supposedly can run faster than the speed of light but he doesnt burn out from the friction because of some "speed force" bullcrap. UNREALISTIC!

EVERYTHING must make sense in the real world, or else it cant work. Comics, books and cinema are different media and yet you can adapt a book word for word, but you cant adapt a comic book that way? Anyway, i'm done defending Robin against guys who only know the mythos from the movies and BTAS. I'll wait for the moment that Nolan or some other director adapts Robin successfully and you'll all be like: "I told you Robin would work!"

You hit the nail on the head with the different media aspect and likewise BB, TDK are not fantasy genre films. That''s not there medium. There style is probably most similar to not the batman comics that emerged in the 50's with sci-fi and all that. But more so to both year one's of batman.

The actual first "year one" of batman in comics 39-40 where he pretty much exclusivly took on mobsters and such and frank miller's Year one. Not to mention also the mobster heavy TLH.

Stylistically this film doesn't fit the world you described in your post. It shouldn't have to either. Batman has 70 years of history and no film maker should feel forced to cram all of that into a 2hr+ film.

 

[Doctor Who]

Should Nolan add Robin? Yes. In the next movie? No. I think we should give put a hold on Robin till 4 or 5 if that ever occurs to be the saga case. However, I think it would be interesting to start off with Jason Todd first instead of Dick Grayson. Benefit of the doubt thought of Joker returning to take away of Bats' new collegues and having the Robin/Nightwing story come into place after that; working to a more dramatic effect.