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

[Mr. Earle]

I think the bold part is where we disagree. I think the fact that you use 'should' also shows that we are not going to be able to reach an agreement on this issue. Each movie has it's own internal logic it needs to stay consistent to. TDK is proof of that, and yeah, I did realize that the movie decided not to explain how Rhodey got his suit off, as well as how they did explain how Batman has a vehicle that can jump from roof to roof.

I should have mentioned a plot hole from TDK, not IM2. Like how the Joker knew that Batman would make it in time to save Dent or Rachel but the police wouldnt. He had set the timer exactly right as if he knew how long it would take to get transported to MCU, for the cops to realise that the couple is missing, for Batman to arrive, for Batman to question him, and finally how long it would take Batman to reach Dent or Rachel.

Also, speeding forward Dick's training won't keep Batman's actor from aging.

Bale may have aged 3 years between BB and TDK but Bruce only aged six months. Its the movie time that matters, not real time. Bruce shouldnt be in his 40ies and Dick in his 20ies for him to finally become Robin.

 

[cklockwork]

Yes. Nolan has found really interesting ways to keep Batman interesting and not stale before resorting to sidekicks. And so far it looks like he can keep this going on.

But Nolan's Batman surrounds himself with sidekicks. Alfred, Gordon, fox, Rachel... even dent. He couldn't do anything without them - they just don't wear costumes. Expect Robin to be used the same. Inserting a kid into the mix is a great way to lighten the series' tone. Batman needs that after losing Rachel. Look for catwoman and Robin to come in together. But no costume for the boy wonder. IMO

 

[cklockwork]

Double post. Sorry - posting from droid is hard

 

[The Joker]

But Nolan's Batman surrounds himself with sidekicks. Alfred, Gordon, fox, Rachel... even dent. He couldn't do anything without them - they just don't wear costumes.

I'd hardly call them sidekicks. Especially the likes of Gordon and Dent. They work for the law in Gotham. They're allies. They don't go out and fight by Batman's side, work with him in his cave, get trained by him etc. Not to mention the relationship with Robin is completely different to Bruce's relationship with those people.

 

[THE MR. TERRIFIC]

It could work, but Nolan doesn't want it so it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Those are not sidekicks, they all have a certain job.

Alfred- practically family, his doctor, and the only person he confides in.

Racheal- his love interest and best child hood friend

Lucius- his armorer, and the man who runs his company.

No one helps him on the field other than gordan from time to time.


Lightening up the series is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, why don't we just put nips back on.

 

[cklockwork]

I'd hardly call them sidekicks. Especially the likes of Gordon and Dent. They work for the law in Gotham. They're allies. They don't go out and fight by Batman's side, work with him in his cave, get trained by him etc. Not to mention the relationship with Robin is completely different to Bruce's relationship with those people.

Okay. I can see your point regarding gordon and dent. I just think nolan can easily pull off a realistic robin by not having him be in costume. Especially if the character is linked to catwoman. Catwoman is a character on the fence of good and bad, robin can easily be a plot device to tip her scale toward good. You pro or con robin in the series, Joker?

 

[Victarion]

That's an interesting thought. I have two objections:
1) Why would Batman trust an ex-gang member with his secret?
2) How is this character inspired by Robin, beyond being younger than Batman and male?

I was thinking about how Bruce sort of lived the life of a criminal before Ra's found him and thought the parallels between that and my take on a Robinesque--or maybe more aptly called Nightwing-esque--character would lend to a strong story behind the partnership.

I also thought further on the idea of Bruce adopting a young Dick Grayson...maybe he could do so after BB3; right now he needs to come to terms with the events of TDK and his duty to Gotham. Afterward he could fall into a period of regrets about the life he never had with Rachel...and he could adopt Dick at this time. I've got to head to work; I'll ponder on this and post more later.

 

[GL1]

I'd hardly call them sidekicks. Especially the likes of Gordon and Dent. They work for the law in Gotham. They're allies. They don't go out and fight by Batman's side, work with him in his cave, get trained by him etc. Not to mention the relationship with Robin is completely different to Bruce's relationship with those people.

Robin's not ally?
Gordon doesn't have a completely different relationship to Batman than Dent or Fox?
Fox works for the law in Gotham?
Lots o lafs > Robin can't have a certain job?

I sense some invisible/made up lines here. It sounds like there's plenty of room for Grayson as an ally to the bat, just like the others.

I should have mentioned a plot hole from TDK, not IM2. Like how the Joker knew that Batman would make it in time to save Dent or Rachel but the police wouldnt. He had set the timer exactly right as if he knew how long it would take to get transported to MCU, for the cops to realise that the couple is missing, for Batman to arrive, for Batman to question him, and finally how long it would take Batman to reach Dent or Rachel.
Bale may have aged 3 years between BB and TDK but Bruce only aged six months. Its the movie time that matters, not real time. Bruce shouldnt be in his 40ies and Dick in his 20ies for him to finally become Robin.

Good observation, perhaps I should go straight with the point. I don't think any logic fudging justifies any additional logic fuzzing. If physics is broken, that doesn't mean that breaking emotional laws is being consistent. It seems like you're looking for some point to justify 'it's a comic book movie, so throw logic out the window' and I don't think that reasoning is valid, even if you find such a point.

On your particular example, the movie established in the opening scene that Joker has a perfect sense of timing. That means it's a conceit, and not a plot hole. A conceit which I don't believe justifies a different conceit, that Robin can learn a wide range of skills in much less time than it would take in real life for even a gifted child. This conceit would also come with the equally apalling conceits: that Robin can learn Batman's skills faster than Batman has and that a prepubscent child would be out in the streets of Gotham fighting crime with Batman's approval. Not even a teen. A child of 12 years old. That's too much for the TDK universe, any way you slice it.

Why can't bruce be in his 40s, exactly? Why do we have to define how old bruce is, anyway, since, as you said, he never seems to age? And why is there no middle ground between a 12 year old with a year of training out in the field and a 20 something with ? training out in the field?

 

[The Joker]

Robin's not ally?

Of course he is. But he's also a sidekick. He lives with Batman. Was trained by him. Takes orders from him. Follows Batman's rules etc.

Totally different to the others. How anyone can equate Robin's relationship to Batman as being the same as Gordon, Fox, Alfred, Dent etc is beyond me.

By that logic Robin would hardly be needed since Batman already has so many sidekicks and allies

Gordon doesn't have a completely different relationship to Batman than Dent or Fox?

Is this a rhetorical question, or are you actually serious?

Fox works for the law in Gotham?

Who said that?

Alfred- practically family, his doctor, and the only person he confides in.

Racheal- his love interest and best child hood friend

Lucius- his armorer, and the man who runs his company.

No one helps him on the field other than gordan from time to time.


Lightening up the series is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, why don't we just put nips back on.

This guy gets it.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Seriously.^

 

[El Payaso]

How is that a goal? And what profit is gained by reaching it?

So far it has been quite profitable critically and financially.

It allows Batman to keep being a serious franchise without an iota of cheese.

But Nolan's Batman surrounds himself with sidekicks. Alfred, Gordon, fox, Rachel... even dent.

I'm not sure if they can be called side-kicks, but even if they were, it's needless to say that they're not children in a red and yellow suit adopted by Bruce Wayne. That's the difference Nolan is making. Comics are fine, but this could be better in some respects. No Robin doesn't mean getting stale at some point; Nolan has proven that so far. And it's clear that the next Batman can go many routes before having to say 'we need a new character next to Batman to keep him interesting.'

He couldn't do anything without them

Excuse me?

Okay, they have been a lot of help, vital help. But Batman couldn't do 'anything' without them?

they just don't wear costumes.

That and some other things I mentioned is what makes those character such a better choice than Robin.

Expect Robin to be used the same. Inserting a kid into the mix is a great way to lighten the series' tone. Batman needs that after losing Rachel.

Wasn't that what they thought after Batman Returns?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

While I agree that there's no need to lighten the tone of the series, and that Robin is a necessity (not at this moment), but I honestly don't believe bring in Robin will necessarily lighten the tone, and it definitely won't lighten it to Schumacher levels. I think Dark Victory established that well that Batman can still retain its dark tone while bring in Robin.

What I think people are saying isn't that the movie's tone doesn't need to be lightened, but Bruce himself needs a bit more light in his life. He needs more reasons to be Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. He has nothing more than Alfred, but Alfred doesn't share his dread and his pain the way Dick Grayson does (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I believe that Grayson was one of his last links to humane side, and with Rachel dead what does he have to look forward to as Bruce Wayne? Dick Grayson was Bruce's last anchor to humanity.

I'm not saying that Robin should be added, but I just don't like that people believe that there's absolutely no way Robin can be added. I believe if Nolan really wanted to, he could add Robin, but I respect that he doesn't want Robin in the films.

Also I see it as funny that Bale was against having Robin despite Dark Victory being his favorite Batman story along with The Long Halloween.

 

[Texas Zombie]

I feel that the since of urgency has always been lightened when batman relies on robin for help.

I wouldn't see batman needing robin until he is a hero and not in his current situation.

 

[Mr. Earle]

On your particular example, the movie established in the opening scene that Joker has a perfect sense of timing. That means it's a conceit, and not a plot hole. A conceit which I don't believe justifies a different conceit, that Robin can learn a wide range of skills in much less time than it would take in real life for even a gifted child. This conceit would also come with the equally apalling conceits: that Robin can learn Batman's skills faster than Batman has and that a prepubscent child would be out in the streets of Gotham fighting crime with Batman's approval. Not even a teen. A child of 12 years old. That's too much for the TDK universe, any way you slice it.

I see what you mean. Ok maybe the TDK universe is too realistic for that, but dont forget that Year One and TLH are in the same continuity as everything else in Batman's history, including alien gods and time travel.
Robin would work a lot better under a different director that makes the movies more comic booky and less crime drama-ish and knows how to direct action scenes. If Dick can move fast and flip flack around enemies like Hitgirl (which he should be able to do with his circus training), then he doesnt need to know martial arts. He wont be fighting at first.

Why can't bruce be in his 40s, exactly? Why do we have to define how old bruce is, anyway, since, as you said, he never seems to age? And why is there no middle ground between a 12 year old with a year of training out in the field and a 20 something with ? training out in the field?

The problem is that while comics Bruce became Batman in his 20ies, movie Bruce did so when he was 30. So comics Bruce was able to raise Dick and still be young. If movie Bruce turns 40 they re gonna start exploring themes like "is he too old for it?", "should he retire?" and all that crap. Imho he needs to be stuck at the age of about 35. I'd like to see Dick grow old as the movies progress, leave him and become Nightwing and Bruce move on to the next Robin.

I'd propose that after Dick, they skip all the others and get Damian so that they can do a story with Dick as Batman and Damian as Robin whenever they feel that the franchise needs a breath of fresh air.

Jason and Tim serve their purpose and i wish they could be adapted too, but you cant bring 4 Robins in the movies, can you?

While I agree that there's no need to lighten the tone of the series, and that Robin is a necessity (not at this moment), but I honestly don't believe bring in Robin will necessarily lighten the tone, and it definitely won't lighten it to Schumacher levels. I think Dark Victory established that well that Batman can still retain its dark tone while bring in Robin.

What I think people are saying isn't that the movie's tone doesn't need to be lightened, but Bruce himself needs a bit more light in his life. He needs more reasons to be Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. He has nothing more than Alfred, but Alfred doesn't share his dread and his pain the way Dick Grayson does (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I believe that Grayson was one of his last links to humane side, and with Rachel dead what does he have to look forward to as Bruce Wayne? Dick Grayson was Bruce's last anchor to humanity.

I'm not saying that Robin should be added, but I just don't like that people believe that there's absolutely no way Robin can be added. I believe if Nolan really wanted to, he could add Robin, but I respect that he doesn't want Robin in the films.

Also I see it as funny that Bale was against having Robin despite Dark Victory being his favorite Batman story along with The Long Halloween.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Robin could be done, but he would have to be extremely different.

I could see robin being adopted by Bruce legally after his parents and family die, and not knowing Bruce is batman being robin, maybe he could start out as a vigilante, and turn into robin.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Robin could be done, but he would have to be extremely different.

I could see robin being adopted by Bruce legally after his parents and family die, and not knowing Bruce is batman being robin, maybe he could start out as a vigilante, and turn into robin.

That's what you call extremely different?

 

[Texas Zombie]

Yeah could you see a twelve year old jumping around the screen in red and green as not be laughable?

He would have to be extremely different, as all the character are.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yeah could you see a twelve year old jumping around the screen in red and green as not be laughable?

He would have to be extremely different, as all the character are.

But the version you proposed doesnt change that and that's why i wrote the post above.

And no, i dont find it any more laughable than a guy that dresses up like a bat to fight crime when he has millions of dollars to help the city in other ways.

 

[Texas Zombie]

So you don't find a 12 year old dressed in green and red jumping around fighting crime nonsensical? Ok then.

Well I bet 99% of the movie going audiance would.

Harvey dent didn't have acid splashed on his face, joker doesn't have a permanently white face, why would robin be completely the same as his comic book counterpart.

In reality if robin is done in this series he would be very different from his original interpretation, yet keep similar elements that make his character.

Which has been done with all characters in the nolanuniverse.

 

[Mr. Earle]

So you don't find a 12 year old dressed in green and red jumping around fighting crime nonsensical? Ok then.

I do, just like Batman, the Joker and everything else in this franchise are nonsensical. Its a comic book franchise with a man dressed as a bat fighting a clown, a dude with half his face burnt, a clay monster, a dude that needs sub zero temperatures to survive, etc.

Nolan has gone the realistic way and its fine. But if he or anyone else wanted, they could adapt the rest of the mythos. Nolan goes about it like "it just so happened that this dude dresses like a bat, this other dude happens to dress as a clown, but everything else in the world is normal", but someone else could say: "this dude dresses like a bat, there are also clay monsters, aliens, space cops with magic rings, etc. Its a comic book world".

Well I bet 99% of the movie going audiance would.

Maybe, maybe not. They certainly didnt laugh at Hitgirl.

Harvey dent didn't have acid splashed on his face, joker doesn't have a permanently white face, why would robin be completely the same as his comic book counterpart.

In reality if robin is done in this series he would be very different from his original interpretation, yet keep similar elements that make his character.

So the point you re trying to make is that some characters were changed so Robin has to be changed somehow. Even so, the change you proposed doesnt address all the problems you say the audience will have with him. You say they will have a problem watching a 12 year old kid fight crime but the change you proposed just affected the way Bruce adopts him. If anything, the original version is better than yours because Robin would be trained by Batman first and then allowed to fight crime.

Which has been done with all characters in the nolanuniverse.

Not all the characters. But even if it were so, does that make it a law that will have to apply to Robin too? No. Nolan could just as easily adapt him as he is.

 

[El Payaso]

And no, i dont find it any more laughable than a guy that dresses up like a bat to fight crime when he has millions of dollars to help the city in other ways.

The problem is when you put the two of them together.

 

[the dmg]

The problem is when you put the two of them together.

Robin doesn't automatically equal cheese.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Can you see batman who in the series feels being batman as burden giving someone else this burden, a child?

It would be completely uncharacteristic of him. He feels protector of Gotham is his duty, his obligation.

The only way I could see robin being introduced is if he has to train him, there is no oter way.


But how could you say bruce Wayne would knowingly endanger a child, when his character tries to keep everyone out of danger even those trained to handle danger(police and so forth).

What is batman without robin?
Simple answer batman

 

[cklockwork]

While I agree that there's no need to lighten the tone of the series, and that Robin is a necessity (not at this moment), but I honestly don't believe bring in Robin will necessarily lighten the tone, and it definitely won't lighten it to Schumacher levels. I think Dark Victory established that well that Batman can still retain its dark tone while bring in Robin.

What I think people are saying isn't that the movie's tone doesn't need to be lightened, but Bruce himself needs a bit more light in his life. He needs more reasons to be Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. He has nothing more than Alfred, but Alfred doesn't share his dread and his pain the way Dick Grayson does (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I believe that Grayson was one of his last links to humane side, and with Rachel dead what does he have to look forward to as Bruce Wayne? Dick Grayson was Bruce's last anchor to humanity.

I'm not saying that Robin should be added, but I just don't like that people believe that there's absolutely no way Robin can be added. I believe if Nolan really wanted to, he could add Robin, but I respect that he doesn't want Robin in the films.

Also I see it as funny that Bale was against having Robin despite Dark Victory being his favorite Batman story along with The Long Halloween.

I really think we're on the same page, Parker Wayne. I don't mean the film's tone needs lightened as much as Bruce's life. In my opinion, the Batman at the end of TDK is dangerously close to losing all hope. Despite his best intentions almost everything has turned out for the worst. The city's organized crime has been replaced by psychotic criminals, besides putting the Joker behind bars, Batman himself is now public enemy #1, and the love of his life has been killed... more or less, because of Batman's very existence. I don't think a million Alfred pep-talks could pull him out of this emotional funk. The thing about Robin is that the character shares so many emotional and motivational similarities with Bruce. It is very easy for Bruce to see himself in Dick. Now, think back to Batman Begins.... who was it that kept Bruce from seeking flat-out revenge for his parent's murder, who was it that kept bruce from becoming just another vigilante with a gun? Rachel! And it seems like such a wonderful way for Rachel to carry on in Bruce's heart.... by him taking in Dick and taming his need for revenge. I do not expect Robin to ever be in costume... but I do expect him to enter into the series. It's okay for Nolan to hint at things to come... even if he has no intention of ever seeing those story-lines through (honestly, I expect this to be the last Nolan-Bale Batman film.) So bring in two lost and confused characters (Catwoman and Robin) that both need Batman and Bruce's guidance, respectively, and I see a very plausible existence for Robin in this film.