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

[IBRAH08]

Robin's reckoning won one award. And only part 1 of Robin's reckoning won it, too.

And Robin's reckoning never even showed the transition of Dick to Robin. It was his backstory of how he lost his parents and found their killer. It is essentially a mirror image of Bruce's story, which was never done in BTAS.

I'm not trying to diminish the effectiveness of the episode, because it deserved it's win. But it most likely got it because it's the only episode in BTAS which dealt with death, and trying to cope with it. It was pretty hardcore.

Fair enough. But I think it just gives some validity to Robin as a character and all that jazz

 

[El Payaso]

OK, i just noticed this from IBRAH08's post responding to you. I dont know why i missed this before.

Anyway, how is this relevant to the point at hand? Are comparing Robin to Batmite?

It's the next step. Robin, Batgirl, Batmite.

 

[Mr. Earle]

It's the next step. Robin, Batgirl, Batmite.

 

[El Payaso]

Robin, Batgirl, Batmite... Two-Face???

 

[Mr. Earle]

What? I just posted this as a "wtf are you talking about" type of response.

 

[El Payaso]

So that was what it was.

But Robin-Batgirl-Batmite is the progression between bat-sidekicks, one more unnecessary, cheesey and absurd than the previous one.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Batmite is no sidekick. He is to Batman what Mxyplixikdhfsd is to Superman. Giving Batman a sidekick a whole other thing than having a story with an omnipotent 5th dimensional imp who is a big fan of Batman. I'm sure you can understand this.

 

[KalMart]

Batmite is no sidekick. He is to Batman what Mxyplixikdhfsd is to Superman. Giving Batman a sidekick a whole other thing than having a story with an omnipotent 5th dimensional imp who is a big fan of Batman. I'm sure you can understand this.

Agreed, Batmite is to Batman what The Great Kazoo is to Fred Flintstone. Perfect material for a live-action feature film.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Mxyzptlk...

 

[El Payaso]

Batmite is no sidekick. He is to Batman what Mxyplixikdhfsd is to Superman. Giving Batman a sidekick a whole other thing than having a story with an omnipotent 5th dimensional imp who is a big fan of Batman. I'm sure you can understand this.

And I get that Robin is a boy with a yellow cape and Batgirl a girl with a blue cape. And yet them and Batmite are all unnecessary, cheesey and absurd, one more than the previous one. Which was my main point.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And I get that Robin is a boy with a yellow cape and Batgirl a girl with a blue cape. And yet them and Batmite are all unnecessary, cheesey and absurd, one more than the previous one. Which was my main point.

Dick Grayson, the current Batman, disagrees with you.

 

[weezerspider]

Bill Finger on Robin:
“Robin was an outgrowth of a conversation I had with Bob. As I said, Batman was a combination of Douglas and Sherlock Holmes. Holmes had his Watson.The thing that bothered me was that Batman didn't have anyone to talk to, and it got a little tiresome always having him thinking. I found that as I went along Batman needed a Watson to talk to. That's how Robin came to be. Bob called me over and said he was going to put a boy in the strip to identify with Batman. I thought it was a great idea.”

So thats why Robin was created. Well, later characters fit Batman's "Watson" better than Robin. Alfred and Gordon in the comics do. And since this topic is about Robin in Nolan's films, Nolan's Batman has three Watson's: Gordon, Alfred and Fox. There is no need for Robin in a Nolan movie. His purpose is fulfilled by other characters.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Robin is more than Batman's Watson. He's his comrade in combat (not Gordon, nor Alfred or Fox are), he is his son, his successor, his hope. Dick is the one guy in all of this who still has a bright outlook of life, is focused on the mission and enjoys himself at the same time, and thus offers Bruce what nobody else can: He is his link to a normal life (as a father to a kid, and later to a family of them, Cass included), and the only guy who injects some happiness to the bat family and Bruce himself.

Without Dick Bruce would have become Rorschach a long time ago.

 

[weezerspider]

Robin is more than Batman's Watson. He's his comrade in combat (not Gordon, nor Alfred or Fox are), he is his son, his successor, his hope. Dick is the one guy in all of this who still has a bright outlook of life, is focused on the mission and enjoys himself at the same time, and thus offers Bruce what nobody else can: He is his link to a normal life (as a father to a kid, and later to a family of them, Cass included), and the only guy who injects some happiness to the bat family and Bruce himself.

Without Dick Bruce would have become Rorschach a long time ago.

Technically Gordon can be a comrade in combat. Nolan's Batman doesn't need a son, he's what, 30-maybe? He doesn't need to worry about a successor, again, he's maybe 30. Batman's hope should be inside himself. He's one man fighting for justice in a hellish city.IMO, he's a super-coward if his hope is in a kid. He's a super-hero if his hope is in himself. Again, Nolan's Batman doesn't need a light hearted character. That's what Alfred's comic relief is for. How is Robin a link to a normal life? He's a super hero too. Fox and Alfred are more links to normal life than another crime fighter is. Nolan's Batman gets happiness from Alfred, Fox, Gordon and Rachel. 3 of those 4 are still alive and kickin'. Nolan's Batman doesn't need Robin.
And for the record, I don't think any Batman NEEDS a Robin. There has been countless of classic stories without Robin, so no one can truly say he NEEDs Robin. Batman:Year One, The Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, The Joker's 5-Way Revenge and The Laughing Fish are all great Bat stories without Robin. Heck, TDKR doesn't have a typical Robin. I'm not saying there haven't been great stories with Robin, all I'm saying is if Batman truly NEEDED Robin, he couldn't have a single good story without him.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I love how you guys refer to the realistic graphic novels whenever i whine about Nolan's realism ("Nolan's Batman is like the Batman in the Killing Joker or The Long Halloween"), but whenever i mention Robin you say "Nolan's Batman doesnt need him". If the Batman in Dark Victory can have Robin why cant Nolan's?

Technically Gordon can be a comrade in combat.

Gordon cant keep up with Batman. He always arrives after Batman has taken down the bad guy. Have you ever seen the two of them in combat other than once or twice?

That's what Alfred's comic relief is for.

Robin isnt there for comic relief. He is genuinely happy. He loves being Robin, while also getting all the girls and enjoying life in general.

How is Robin a link to a normal life? He's a super hero too.

Because Bruce gets to have his own weird family. The Robins are his sons and Cass almost assumed the role of a daughter too.
Plus, Dick doesnt let him fall in the abyss of his obsession. He is the fun guy that doesnt let you stay home for too long and drags you to the bars until you regain your good mood. The comics specifically state that Robin has that role for Bruce's psych.

Nolan's Batman gets happiness from Alfred, Fox, Gordon and Rachel.

Happiness? Really? Alfred perhaps, but nothing is as rejuvenating as a kid's laughter and his love for life. Its a different type of happiness.
Furthermore, Dick has had the same origins as Bruce (if not worse because he is raised in a cave by a madman), he fights crime at night alongside Batman and yet he is happy. He is a great foil to Batman.

And for the record, I don't think any Batman NEEDS a Robin.

In specific stories, or a continuity 3 movies long? No. But in the general continuity where Batman gets to evolve further, and age more than a year, Robin is essential. And that's why i want a Batman franchise that keeps going like the Potter movies. I want to see Bruce evolve, not some random story where he takes down another villain.

Heck, TDKR doesn't have a typical Robin.

How do you define the typical Robin? So far we've had five: Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie (for a short time) and Damian and each one has been different from the others. I dont count TDKR Robin because its not in continuity but what do you mean that she wasnt typical? She was there and she was important to Bruce and to the story.

I'm not saying there haven't been great stories with Robin, all I'm saying is if Batman truly NEEDED Robin, he couldn't have a single good story without him.

What kind of arguement is that? There have been great stories without Alfred or Gordon. Are they worthless as well?

 

[Rodrigo90]

And when Michael Jackson likes having kids around him,he is considered a perv. Life is unfair.

 

[IBRAH08]

And I get that Robin is a boy with a yellow cape and Batgirl a girl with a blue cape. And yet them and Batmite are all unnecessary, cheesey and absurd, one more than the previous one. Which was my main point.

unlike a man in a bat suit with ears and a black cape. That's totally normal

 

[IBRAH08]

Robin is more than Batman's Watson. He's his comrade in combat (not Gordon, nor Alfred or Fox are), he is his son, his successor, his hope. Dick is the one guy in all of this who still has a bright outlook of life, is focused on the mission and enjoys himself at the same time, and thus offers Bruce what nobody else can: He is his link to a normal life (as a father to a kid, and later to a family of them, Cass included), and the only guy who injects some happiness to the bat family and Bruce himself.

Without Dick Bruce would have become Rorschach a long time ago.

Good post all thoughts I share

 

[IBRAH08]

Technically Gordon can be a comrade in combat. Nolan's Batman doesn't need a son, he's what, 30-maybe? He doesn't need to worry about a successor, again, he's maybe 30. Batman's hope should be inside himself. He's one man fighting for justice in a hellish city.IMO, he's a super-coward if his hope is in a kid. He's a super-hero if his hope is in himself. Again, Nolan's Batman doesn't need a light hearted character. That's what Alfred's comic relief is for.

He turns 30 in BB you can see it on the banner in the background when Rachael visits him on the morning of his birthday party. So by the third movie he's 33-35 years old probably. And isn't the whole appeal of Batman that he is more human than most heros and isn't humility what many fans like to see in people of elevated statuses, such a superheros??? why can't he find hope in a child?

 

[weezerspider]

He turns 30 in BB you can see it on the banner in the background when Rachael visits him on the morning of his birthday party. So by the third movie he's 33-35 years old probably. And isn't the whole appeal of Batman that he is more human than most heros and isn't humility what many fans like to see in people of elevated statuses, such a superheros??? why can't he find hope in a child?

He can, but its not essential to the character and its certainly not essential to Nolan's Batman, which again, is what this overall topic is about.

 

[IBRAH08]

He can, but its not essential to the character and its certainly not essential to Nolan's Batman, which again, is what this overall topic is about.

Sometimes I get sidetracked here and forget that we are only talking about the next Nolan film.

 

[weezerspider]

If the Batman in Dark Victory can have Robin why cant Nolan's?

Dark Victory Batman also has a living Two-Face and a permawhite Joker. My point? They aren't in the same world.

[/QUOTE]Gordon cant keep up with Batman. He always arrives after Batman has taken down the bad guy. Have you ever seen the two of them in combat other than once or twice? [/QUOTE]

This is why I said Technically. Regardless, does Batman really need someone to fight with him in Nolan's films?

[/QUOTE]Robin isnt there for comic relief. He is genuinely happy. He loves being Robin, while also getting all the girls and enjoying life in general.[/QUOTE]

And those type of characters tend to be the comic relief characters in Summer Blockbusters. Therefore, Alfred's comic relief will do for B3

[/QUOTE]Because Bruce gets to have his own weird family. The Robins are his sons and Cass almost assumed the role of a daughter too.
Plus, Dick doesnt let him fall in the abyss of his obsession. He is the fun guy that doesnt let you stay home for too long and drags you to the bars until you regain your good mood. The comics specifically state that Robin has that role for Bruce's psych.[/QUOTE]

Nolan's Batman hasn't dealt with enough to need a guy to take him for drinks or whatever your trying to say. Alfred will do for now. Also why does Bruce have to have a family? He'd make a terrible father.

[/QUOTE]Alfred perhaps, but nothing is as rejuvenating as a kid's laughter and his love for life. Its a different type of happiness.
Furthermore, Dick has had the same origins as Bruce (if not worse because he is raised in a cave by a madman), he fights crime at night alongside Batman and yet he is happy. He is a great foil to Batman.[/QUOTE]

The last movie already compared and contrasted a character(Dent) to Bruce/Batman. We can wait awhile before more foils to Batman come along. Also, Bruce hasn't been through nearly as much crap yet as his comic counter part. He's generally more hopeful and is more happy because he's young in his crime fighting life and still has hope he can make a difference. When he is down, he's got Alfred.

[/QUOTE]In specific stories, or a continuity 3 movies long? No. But in the general continuity where Batman gets to evolve further, and age more than a year, Robin is essential. And that's why i want a Batman franchise that keeps going like the Potter movies. I want to see Bruce evolve, not some random story where he takes down another villain. [/QUOTE]

Well until Nolaln's done there is no need for us to throw him in there. You even said, in a 3 movie long continuity he's not needed. Not to mention Nolan doesn't like the character. The last superhero director who hated a character, but was forced to use it was Sam Raimi and Spiderman 3 turned out great

[/QUOTE]How do you define the typical Robin?[/QUOTE]

One trained by Bruce.

[/QUOTE]What kind of arguement is that? There have been great stories without Alfred or Gordon. Are they worthless as well?[/QUOTE]

Read it again. I never said he was pointless. He just isn't needed. They are two different things. Pointless means there is literally no point. If he's not needed, he brings things to the table, but they aren't necessary when putting together a good Batman story.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Nolan's Batman hasn't dealt with enough to need a guy to take him for drinks or whatever your trying to say. Alfred will do for now. Also why does Bruce have to have a family? He'd make a terrible father.

I dont believe that Batman is a great father, but he's a cool father and whether you like it or not, the robins are his children since he cant have a normal family otherwise.

The last movie already compared and contrasted a character(Dent) to Bruce/Batman. We can wait awhile before more foils to Batman come along. Also, Bruce hasn't been through nearly as much crap yet as his comic counter part. He's generally more hopeful and is more happy because he's young in his crime fighting life and still has hope he can make a difference. When he is down, he's got Alfred.

I'll give you that. This Batman is too young, but dont forget that in the comics he adopted Robin in his 3rd yeard as Batman.

Read it again. I never said he was pointless. He just isn't needed. They are two different things. Pointless means there is literally no point. If he's not needed, he brings things to the table, but they aren't necessary when putting together a good Batman story.

You got stuck on one word and didnt adress my point. There have been good stories without Gordon and Alfred, just like there have been good stories without Robin. Your arguement is invalid.

One trained by Bruce.

She was trained by him.

unlike a man in a bat suit with ears and a black cape. That's totally normal

Indeed.

Good post all thoughts I share

Thanks!

 

[General Vulcun]

I haven't really gone through the whole thread, so I'll just share my two cents on Robin and his possible role in the franchise.

I'm personally a fan of a solo Batman, but there can absolutely be great stories that feature Robin. The thing is, though, since Robin and Batman are not an absolute necessity for them to be together in order for Batman to work as a character, Robin should not simply be included just because he's been there since 1940. Since it's established that Robin would usually come after Batman has been active, the introduction and inclusion of Robin would have to be done in a way that benefits both character's existence, as well as strengthen the stories and themes that would be told around these characters. Simply put, the character cannot be there just to be there. He has to have a greater purpose.

In relation to Nolan's films, aside from Nolan's comments about how Robin is in a crib somewhere, Begins and TDK have pretty much spelled out where the 3rd film is going to go. Nolan's series is about the emergence and subsequent transformation(s) of Batman and the transformation of Gotham. I expect B3 to restablish Batman as a hero (though maybe not the hero we saw him as in Begins), for Gotham to go from hell to some form of stablization, I expect the vigilante/freak situation to worsen with the expectation of this becoming more stablized as well, and I also expect the "true heroes" of Gotham to be established ("Gotham needs a hero with a face"); who these true heroes are, I don't know.

Point is, a lot is going to have to be done in B3 in order for some stablization to be achieved. I just don't see any room for a character like Robin in this final Nolan film. Not only because the inclusion of the character doesn't match up with the established themes of this trilogy, but also considering the pain Bruce is in after Rachel's death, I find it hard to believe that he'd be so willing to let another woman into his life, never mind a young kid/adolescent. I do believe that there will be some sort of love interest in the film (with some expected difficulties), but for Bruce to take on the responsibility of not only fathering this kid but the anxiety of having this kid come out with him every night or having to struggle with this kid coming out with him against Bruce's wishes, not only would it take focus away from the conclusion of the themes and arcs that began with Begins, but it would come off as quite uncharacteristic of the character, considering where he's at right now.

Now, Robin's inclusion of a major character in B3 aside, would he work as a brief mention or allusion to? No, because now a potentionally major character has been referenced/introduced into the franchise just as one creative team is concluding and a new one is beginning. What if the new creative team feels the same way Nolan does about Robin and opts not to use him or reference him at all? They'd be in somewhat of a corner because this new character, one that a lot of people are very familiar with and have a distinct idea of what this inclusion could lead to, has just been introduced into this world. They couldn't just ignore the existence of Dick Grayson and just go about their stories like he was never introduced. I say this because I'm fairly certain WB doesn't want to start the franchise from scratch again, and would rather the next team provide something of a sequel to the events in Nolan's films (events, ideas, and themes, not necessarily the same visual style).

In short, I'm not against Robin showing up in the franchise, but I just don't think Robin should be shoe-horned into Nolan's final film when it appears there will be no room at all for him, or given a brief reference just so the fanboys eyes will light up. If there is a great story that can succeed Nolan's Batman films that involves Robin in a major role, save it for the next creative team if that's the direction the wish to go, not have it forced upon Nolan.

 

[Mike_D202]

Bill Finger on Robin:
“Robin was an outgrowth of a conversation I had with Bob. As I said, Batman was a combination of Douglas and Sherlock Holmes. Holmes had his Watson.The thing that bothered me was that Batman didn't have anyone to talk to, and it got a little tiresome always having him thinking. I found that as I went along Batman needed a Watson to talk to. That's how Robin came to be. Bob called me over and said he was going to put a boy in the strip to identify with Batman. I thought it was a great idea.”

So thats why Robin was created. Well, later characters fit Batman's "Watson" better than Robin. Alfred and Gordon in the comics do. And since this topic is about Robin in Nolan's films, Nolan's Batman has three Watson's: Gordon, Alfred and Fox. There is no need for Robin in a Nolan movie. His purpose is fulfilled by other characters.

KEY WORDS: Identify with Batman. Gordon, Alfred, nor Fox witnessed their parents murdered in front of them and carried the guilt on their shoulders blaming themselves for the deaths. Dick Grayson went through the same thing that Bruce has, he is Bruce's "son" that he takes under his wing.

Nolan (or whomever takes over after Nolan) can put him in the universe realistically on an emotional level.