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

[Crook]

Not sure about Bob Kane's original run but in the contemporary comics continuity it is:

Batman Year One > Batman Man Who Laughs > Batman: Long Halloween > Batman Dark Victory

Robin is introduced in Dark Victory mid way, I estimate that is roughly less than or around 3 years into Batman's beginning.

In the original run I believe it was a year into Batman's career. Currently it's around Year 2/3. Either way, not too far off depending on when B3 takes place.

 

[Mister H.]

Robin is a cornball and has no business in a Nolan batfilm. Sorry if the truth hurts, but it is what it is.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Robin is a cornball and has no business in a Nolan batfilm. Sorry if the truth hurts, but it is what it is.

Except it ain't the truth, well at least Robin being a cornball is.

 

[maenalus]

Nolan is trying to tell a certain take on the Batman character, a darker one based more in his first appearances. Robin completely changes the tone of the world Batman's adventures take place in....that's the whole point of him. Robin was introduced to brighten Batman's comics up; that's what he's for.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Nolan is trying to tell a certain take on the Batman character, a darker one based more in his first appearances. Robin completely changes the tone of the world Batman's adventures take place in....that's the whole point of him. Robin was introduced to brighten Batman's comics up; that's what he's for.

Batman recruiting a child into a one man war against crime isn't dark? Robin made his first appearance in Detective Comics #38 in 1940 and has been an important character since then. Bob Kane and Bill Finger drew inspiration from Robin Hood, a childhood favorite. If you think about it, adding Robin to the mythos makes the character even darker because of Bruce Wanye's endangerment of a ten year old boy. There is nothing "gay" or homoerotic about Robin. In fact, Batman would be much healthier if he were gay.

 

[ALP]

Robin is a cornball and has no business in a Nolan batfilm. Sorry if the truth hurts, but it is what it is.

That is not true at all. Such a statement is only a testament of your ignorance to the character.

We understand that Nolan will not be using Robin and we are fine with it. It's posts like this that get the debates going. Robin is a serious character that has the potential to be portrayed terrifically on screen under the right direction.

Nolan is trying to tell a certain take on the Batman character, a darker one based more in his first appearances. Robin completely changes the tone of the world Batman's adventures take place in....that's the whole point of him. Robin was introduced to brighten Batman's comics up; that's what he's for.

Well I guess you'd need a little brightening up after Bob Kane's and Bill Finger's original comics. Batman was originally conceived as a killer who toted a gun. There is even an infamous Kane/Finger panel in which Batman is flying in the batwing and he wraps a cord around a villain's neck, chokes him to death and says something to the effect of "this scum's terror is over, he deserved it, etc." Nolan, like any filmmaker would, takes the parts from the original comics that he likes and leaves the rest.

There is nothing "gay" or homoerotic about Robin. In fact, Batman would be much healthier if he were gay.

Spoiler

 

[LightningFlash]

In fact, Batman would be much healthier if he were gay.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

The relationship between Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson is one based upon shared mental illness to fight the forces of crime no matter the cost. Bringing a child to the frontlines of a war against the sadistic criminals of Gotham is a sign of disregard for normal habits of morality. Bruce Wayne never grew up, he's the older emobodiment of Dick Grayson. It's that psychological dichotomy that makes Robin such an important aspect of Batman's career.

 

[weezerspider]

I agree, that statement makes no sense other than forcing liberal agenda down our throats.......

MEANWHILE BACK IN THE REAL WORLD...

There have been plenty of great Batman stories told without Robin. Therefore its proven you don't need Robin to make a great Batman story. If you want Robin, thats fine, but respect Nolan's decision not to have him in the story.
As for it not being possible to make a good movie with Robin, thats a pretty weak stance IMO. Just because they haven't made Robin in a movie successfully yet, does not mean he can Never be successful in a movie. Heck, I don't think they truly captured Batman's true identity in film until Batman Begins, and that was after four major motion pictures. I just happen to think Robin doesn't fit in Nolan's universe. I see no reason why he can't be in someone else's Batman franchise.

 

[maenalus]

Well I guess you'd need a little brightening up after Bob Kane's and Bill Finger's original comics. Batman was originally conceived as a killer who toted a gun. There is even an infamous Kane/Finger panel in which Batman is flying in the batwing and he wraps a cord around a villain's neck, chokes him to death and says something to the effect of "this scum's terror is over, he deserved it, etc." Nolan, like any filmmaker would, takes the parts from the original comics that he likes and leaves the rest.

I don't think he needed to be brightened up, they just wanted to take him in a more popular, light-hearted direction. I'm not a Robin hater and I perfectly enjoy the non-killing Batman, but I prefer the original Batman who wasn't afraid to take a life when it was necessary.

 

[Dr. Decker]

I don't think he needed to be brightened up, they just wanted to take him in a more popular, light-hearted direction. I'm not a Robin hater and I perfectly enjoy the non-killing Batman, but I prefer the original Batman who wasn't afraid to take a life when it was necessary.

The Batman doesn't kill.

 

[Dr. Decker]

I agree, that statement makes no sense other than forcing liberal agenda down our throats.......

Liberal agenda? You think that a man dressed as a Bat recruiting a child to fight a never ending war against crime with immense risk to both of their lives is more normal than just a gay couple? Hmmm interesting.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I always wonder...it must be really hard being a Batman fan while hating Robin. You must have to limit yourself to like, 40% of all Batman comics.

 

[maenalus]

The Batman doesn't kill.

In most incarnations, sure, but he originally did. You can't say Batman's debut wasn't really Batman's debut.

 

[El Payaso]

I always wonder...it must be really hard being a Batman fan while hating Robin. You must have to limit yourself to like, 40% of all Batman comics.

OR you might as well know the difference between comics and movies.

 

[Two-Face]

I laugh when people say that you ain't no Batman fan if you hate Robin. Now I'll like Robin IN THE COMICS not movies I don't think he'll ever be taken seriously he's light of Batman that's one of the reasons he won't be in Nolan's moves.

 

[Mister H.]

That is not true at all. Such a statement is only a testament of your ignorance to the character.

We understand that Nolan will not be using Robin and we are fine with it. It's posts like this that get the debates going. Robin is a serious character that has the potential to be portrayed terrifically on screen under the right direction.



Well I guess you'd need a little brightening up after Bob Kane's and Bill Finger's original comics. Batman was originally conceived as a killer who toted a gun. There is even an infamous Kane/Finger panel in which Batman is flying in the batwing and he wraps a cord around a villain's neck, chokes him to death and says something to the effect of "this scum's terror is over, he deserved it, etc." Nolan, like any filmmaker would, takes the parts from the original comics that he likes and leaves the rest.

Spoiler

Maybe the ignorance is on you.

Trust me, there isn't a person on this planet outside of the most extreme Batman comic book geeks that thinks Robin is anything but a cornball.

And I don't mean offense with the 'geek' comment, I'm a geek too.

Batman is a dark, winged, vigilante-- yes, he is a vigilante, who kicks the **** out of deranged lunatics and deadly criminals, putting his life in danger on a regular basis. Now why would he take a little kid dressed in underoos out with him? It's corny. Really corny. It was done to lighten the mood in a time when that was important...70 years ago.

 

[Dr. Decker]

Maybe the ignorance is on you.

Trust me, there isn't a person on this planet outside of the most extreme Batman comic book geeks that thinks Robin is anything but a cornball.

And I don't mean offense with the 'geek' comment, I'm a geek too.

Batman is a dark, winged, vigilante-- yes, he is a vigilante, who kicks the **** out of deranged lunatics and deadly criminals, putting his life in danger on a regular basis. Now why would he take a little kid dressed in underoos out with him? It's corny. Really corny. It was done to lighten the mood in a time when that was important...70 years ago.

Robin is STILL important. Now more than ever after the events of R.I.P. and Final Crisis.

 

[tekken]

why would he take little kid dressed in underoos with him? because the kid wanted to. it's not like batman forced these orphans to become robin - they wanted the life, and batman offered the training so they wouldn't end up dead...except for jason, but i mean in the end, that wasn't really batman's fault anyways.

and besides, robin's actually really helpful. there's only so much gordon and fox can help with, because batman doesn't have his full trust in them...not really. i mean he does, but he still keeps his identity a secret from them, making it that much more complicated. with robin though, they're both in on the game.

batman can't do EVERYTHING. another pair of eyes can help solve cases, and batman can't be in two places at the same time. both harvey and rachel could have been saved if robin were there.

the argument that robin is unrealistic doesn't really work for me, because batman as a concept is really unrealistic to me too. if batman can work, then why the heck not robin? if the reason for his non-existence in the movies is because it's too early, then fine, that's a good enough reason for me. but because he's corny? unrealistic? that's nonsense, batman should be seen as just as corny and unrealistic. and if it's because of robin's appearance, all that can be changed with a good designer - he can look bad ass while still keeping true to his look. i honestly think they can pull off an all black robin suit, and make him still look like robin.


don't get me wrong, i kind of don't want to see robin in any batman movies either...but to blindly ignore his character is downright disrespectful to the source material.

 

[ALP]

The Batman doesn't kill.

Yeah that's what we said when he pushed Harv out of the window to his immediate demise.

Bob Kane would have considered a Batman who won't kill a pansy, that's why he quite encouraged it in Batman'89.

Spoiler

OR you might as well know the difference between comics and movies.

This I definitely agree with. I'd love to see Robin in a film one day but just because someone else does not, doesn't meant they hate the comics or hate the character. There are a number of elements I love in the comics but don't think would translate well to the silver screen.

But if Robin is ever used in a film, he should be just like Hit Girl without the killing

 

[Name Changed]

OR you might as well know the difference between comics and movies.

Which, obviously, you don't. Movies are designed to adapt the material of which it's handling, that's how Batman managed to work as a character onscreen in the first place. He required adaption. The same could be said for The Joker, for Two-Face, for Ra's Al Ghul, for The Scarecrow, for Jim Gordon, and every for other character from the comic books that Nolan eventually utilized. To say that Robin - a character far less ridiculous than half of the parties I just mentioned - couldn't undergo the same process and come out as a feasible, adaptable character that lends credence to the requirements of a serious motion picture storyline is borderline absurd.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Maybe the ignorance is on you.

Trust me, there isn't a person on this planet outside of the most extreme Batman comic book geeks that thinks Robin is anything but a cornball.

And I don't mean offense with the 'geek' comment, I'm a geek too.

Batman is a dark, winged, vigilante-- yes, he is a vigilante, who kicks the **** out of deranged lunatics and deadly criminals, putting his life in danger on a regular basis. Now why would he take a little kid dressed in underoos out with him? It's corny. Really corny. It was done to lighten the mood in a time when that was important...70 years ago.

You mean seventy years ago to the present day.

You think Robin is silly - but Batman isn't? If you think it's the little kid aspect - how about a teenager, as Robin has been for a long time, and was in the Animated Series and Batman Forever? Don't like the underoos - Robin got rid of those a long time ago.

 

[ALP]

Exactly, it's incredibly stupid when people add "kid in underoos" to list of reasons why Robin would not work. In many stories he is a teenager who can hold his own. And Batman also wears 'underoos' on his suit in the comics too, but you don't see that on film.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

You know that's not what I mean, Payaso.

I'm not talking about the people who don't think Robin works in film. There's a difference between saying "Robin is a hard leap to accept in a film" and "Robin is a useless, horrible, stain on the Batman mythos".

I'm refering to the latter, which you see around here a lot.

 

[super scar]

Add Robin. Kill him in the first scene. Then rub vaseline on the corpse of Marilyn Monroe and make a wish over the nearest rainbow.