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

[COMPO]

what if Batman took Robin in out of guilt?
I mean what if Tony Zucco was a underboss for a villian and Batman caught and set him free so that he will lead him to his boss. Unfortunately the circus stuff happens and Bruce blames himself for the death so takes Robin and is sort of reluctant to train Robin when he finds out he's Batman.

And would be a great scene if Robin had Zucco at his mercy and Batman says "now take your revenge on your parents killer... me" and steps in front of Dick explaining how his parents died.

 

[El Payaso]

Well there have been speculation that a dick grayson character might surface in the nolan universe of batman.

The only speculation about Robin in the Nolan franchise is Nolan saying "not on my watch" and Bale refusing to go to work if Robin's there.

Well to be honest if Batman has trained him wouldn't he be able to handle himself

Well, Bruce himself wasn't ready to be Batman until he was 20 something.

and plus, Batman's methods are more stealth so wouldn't Robin be more stealthy like Batman. And to be honest the way Frank Miller used Robin in DKR was good, he used him but didnt have him doing overly dangerous stuff like he went undercover, helped Batman capture people without being seen and got Batman out of jams with the batbike.

In DKR Robin was about to die many times. With good reason cops tried to arrest Batman for putting an underage in danger.

Yes Batman has help with Luicius, Alfred and Gordon but only Alfred can help him full time (and given his age, for how long?),

In fact all three of them are constantly helping Batman. Not to mention that forcing an underage to help you 24/7 is exploitation.

he is now wanted by Gordon & the police, and we've seen Batman is willing to do things Luicius morally disagrees with. Another pair of hands couldn't hurt.

An underage in the mix would be more hurtful than ever. Batman has reasons enough to be chased by the police, he doesn't need charges for underage exploitation, allowing a kid to go undercover and putting the boy's life in danger instead of providing him a normal life.

Lucius disagrees with Bruce in subjects that are far less delicate than having an underage with you while being chased by both police and criminals.

Theres a nice moment in Dark Victory where Dick before he even becomes Robin solves a riddle Bruce & Alfred can't figure out, we could see something like that.

We could.

Personally I rather seeing Batman being the one able to solve a simple riddle.

And I didn't say he wanted to start a family, but as we saw after Chill killed his parents Bruce was filled with revenge until the day Chill died, it would be interesting (I think at least) for Bruce to see the similarities between what happened to him and what happens to Dick and to try and stop him going down that path of revenge, to try and give him a better life.

The day Bruce feels like that he quits as Batman for good and, maybe, for the better.

Balance in his life would be given by fatherhood and not crime fighting.

Basically the exact reasons he takes him in during Dark Victory, which shows how similar the two are really well, I think its a theme that could make for an interesting film, and in fact you can do it without even having Robin in costume, just introduce Dick Grayson and have Bruce take him in, leave Robin for another film.

I'll agree with you in one thing - that I've said many times before - the less Robin you make Robin the better.

 

[wellsy]

Or he just don't like the character at all.

Then why did he audition for the role?

I mean, you don't go after characters that don't appeal to you. Not unless the sack of cash being offered is big enough.

 

[Gianakin_]

When you need money, you'd even do an audition for an Uwe Boll film.

 

[GL1]

I feel its inclusion was a slap on the face to the original concept of Batman. Merely included to attract a younger audience is far from being a solid reason or a real need for Batman.

Many people feel this way. I understand it to be an ignorant position that requires a misconception of the Robin character. Your statements about Robin only reinforce my understand of these opinions.

Why, has Bale (or Nolan) changed his mind in the last 13 days?

I don't usually regard about non-comics fans opinions of comic book characters... so I don't know.

 

[El Payaso]

Then why did he audition for the role?

Money.

I mean, you don't go after characters that don't appeal to you.

You obviously have never been an actor. When you're looking for your big chance the least important thing is whether you like the character/movie or not.

Not unless the sack of cash being offered is big enough.

Read my first reply.

Many people feel this way. I understand it to be an ignorant position that requires a misconception of the Robin character. Your statements about Robin only reinforce my understand of these opinions.

"Merely included to attract a younger audience" is fact.

Other than the name-calling there's no substance in your reply to support your pov.

I don't usually regard about non-comics fans opinions of comic book characters... so I don't know.

Not even those who get the characters better than most fans: Nolan, Bale. They have to do the hard work; it's easy when you're not doing it to call everyone else ignorants.

 

[Ixion]

Robin may have been introduced as a gimmick but hes still around some 65+ years later and has been involved in pretty much every incarnation of Batman to date, so something about the concept must work. How many other fads and gimmicks stand the test of time like that?

And some of the greatest Batman stories ever written involve Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl etc. so the Bat-Family idea does have some merit.

 

[Katsuro]

Robin may have been introduced as a gimmick but hes still around some 65+ years later and has been involved in pretty much every incarnation of Batman to date, so something about the concept must work. How many other fads and gimmicks stand the test of time like that?

And some of the greatest Batman stories ever written involve Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl etc. so the Bat-Family idea does have some merit.

Precisely. Robin may have originally been used to attract kids, but there's a reason he's been kept around. He could've been written out of continuity like Bat-Mite or something, but he wasn't. All the great Batman writers have seen fit to use him.

 

[El Payaso]

All the great Batman writers have seen fit to use him.

Not Jonathan Nolan.




But I've also said that Robin might work in comics. No problem with that.

 

[I Am The Knight]

There's no reason why Dick Grayson can't be introduced. "Robin" is trickier. But not impossible.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Money.

Actually, from what I understand, the rumor about Bale auditioning for Robin is completely false.

"Merely included to attract a younger audience" is fact.

Also untrue. If you read Bob Kane's explanation for creating Robin, it had nothing to do with "attracting younger audiences", which would be a pretty dumb motive anyways, considering 80-90% of the children at that time read comics. Bob Kane felt, and rightfully so, that even a character like Batman would get stagnant on his own after a while. He never saw Batman as a complete lone wolf, and wanted him to have "a Watson to his Sherlock Holmes". Take into account that Batman, at it's heart, is a detective story, and most noteable detectives have partners.

Not even those who get the characters better than most fans: Nolan, Bale.

I don't know that either of them "get" the character. This is always a weak argument. For someone who claims to know a lot about acting in your last response, this proves you know nothing. I have a couple friends who act, and do a decent job, but when they get a role (like say, A Shakespearean play about Henry V) they don't slavishly research the character until they understand him/her to a T. That script, whether you like it or not, is informed by a wide variety of sources, many of whom are fans. The reason this is such a big issue is because Robin is a natural Year Two/Year Three aspect of Batman, and if you continue the story of him by himself you actually are going to run down a road where you stop "getting" the character. Batman has only so many interesting stories on his own, in fact, he only has about two years worth.

They have to do the hard work; it's easy when you're not doing it to call everyone else ignorants.

There's an old phrase: nobody in Hollywood knows nothing, because well, they don't. Just because one or two movies are produced and do well, doesn't mean the third is automatically great, and many fans here have highlighted some pretty major problems if someone like Dick Grayson is never introduced.

 

[Nepenthes]

El Payaso you have problems with the fact that Robin was introduced to attract children. Do you forget that in 1940 (and yes, even in 1939) Batman was a comic primarily aimed at children? How is making a childrens comic more appropriate for that audience somehow "a slap in the face to the original concept of Batman?"


Also are you still completely against the idea of an 18yr or older Robin in the movies? How completely, like out of ten

.

 

[jackshea]

w/o robin you begin to lose many aspects of batman's persona, what sets him apart from the criminals, which would be even more important in the third film.

 

[GL1]

"Merely included to attract a younger audience" is fact.

Other than the name-calling there's no substance in your reply to support your pov.

Fact, yes. Relevant? No, not at all. I feel the position is ignorant, despite your intelligence.

Not even those who get the characters better than most fans: Nolan, Bale. They have to do the hard work; it's easy when you're not doing it to call everyone else ignorants.

Again, the position is ignorant. It requires ignoring at least 20 years of comics history and - in a process that I have yet to fully understand - evaluating Robin as simply "a character who lightens up Batman." It requires a thinker to ignore facts such as: A) Robin is not a "light" character, currently. B) Very few characters are fulfilling their original conceptual purpose. C) Characters can be adapted.

I apologize if the emotional charge of the word has offended anyone. But ignoring facts as plain as these is, by definition, ignorant, is it not?

[edit: And aren't we all ignorant on something? No one knows everything, I'm sure there's a few things anyone here could school me on...]

Nolan and Bale have made exceptional movies, that's to be sure. I don't think of them as quintessential Batman, though... far from it.

Perhaps I am incorrect, and Nolan and Bale are familiar with the Robin/Grayson character and his potential uses, but this has not shown in their statements on the matter. Far from it.

 

[El Payaso]

Actually, from what I understand, the rumor about Bale auditioning for Robin is completely false.

Well, then this debunks the whole thing.

Also untrue. If you read Bob Kane's explanation for creating Robin, it had nothing to do with "attracting younger audiences", which would be a pretty dumb motive anyways, considering 80-90% of the children at that time read comics. Bob Kane felt, and rightfully so, that even a character like Batman would get stagnant on his own after a while. He never saw Batman as a complete lone wolf, and wanted him to have "a Watson to his Sherlock Holmes". Take into account that Batman, at it's heart, is a detective story, and most noteable detectives have partners.

So Kane did the character for one year only and he was alreadt thinking Batman was going to be stagnant???

Not every detective figure has to be a Sherlock Holmes cliché so he has to have a sidecick and if that’s the idea, it should have been a real Dr. Watson as in Gordon, a wise old man. Dr. Watson is eveything but a underage colorful sidecick.

Bad choice from Bob Kane, but as we all know it wasn’t him who made Batman the character he’s today. He didn’t create everything that defined the character and made some bad choices.

I don't know that either of them "get" the character.

I said they get the characters “better than most fans.”

This is always a weak argument.

Not after The Dark Knight.

For someone who claims to know a lot about acting in your last response, this proves you know nothing. I have a couple friends who act, and do a decent job, but when they get a role (like say, A Shakespearean play about Henry V) they don't slavishly research the character until they understand him/her to a T.

Your friends can do whatever they feel they need to do in order to act. Some actors find the wardrobe first and construct the inner character later and some does the exact opposite. Some of them close their eyes and find the character, Daniel Day-Lewis reads and research for two years. Your friends – I wish them good luck – don’t set the universal standards in acting.

The reason this is such a big issue is because Robin is a natural Year Two/Year Three aspect of Batman,

It’s not necessarily like that.

Possible? Sure
Natural? Oh no. If so, tell me why and how.

and if you continue the story of him by himself you actually are going to run down a road where you stop "getting" the character.

Really? Please enlighten me in how this process goes, because I don’t see how this could ever be possible.

Is Superman doomed to be misunderstood by people if they don’t get him a sidekick? And Spiderman?

Batman has only so many interesting stories on his own, in fact, he only has about two years worth.

Exactly, how many interesting stories can he actually have, sir? What’s the exact number?

I have no doubt Nolan can come up with a third movie that will be interesting not involving a colorful underage sidekick. The very ending of TDK suggested a great Batman story where a sidekick is totally unnecessary.

There's an old phrase: nobody in Hollywood knows nothing, because well, they don't.

There's another phrase: nobody in fandom knows nothing, because well, they don't.

That’s as random/baseless as what you said. Only it favours my argument now.

Just because one or two movies are produced and do well, doesn't mean the third is automatically great,

Just because one movie is good the sequels doesn’t have to be as good.

Fact: TDK was much better than the previous one.

So, as you see, seconds or third parts can be great or greater. They don’t have to fail because they don’t necessarily will be “automatically” good.

Sequels are great when the director gets the characters. Nolan’s case.

and many fans here have highlighted some pretty major problems if someone like Dick Grayson is never introduced.

Fans can highlight whatever they want. That doesn’t make any of those speculations any valid argument or a fact. Nolan has already proven he can do better than most fans’ ideas.

 

[El Payaso]

El Payaso you have problems with the fact that Robin was introduced to attract children.

No. I have problems with Robin as a character.

Do you forget that in 1940 (and yes, even in 1939) Batman was a comic primarily aimed at children?

I don’t forget the more adults the bat-films are, the better.

How is making a childrens comic more appropriate for that audience somehow "a slap in the face to the original concept of Batman?"

Because they added a colorful light-toned underage to what was a dark adult loner.


[FONT=&quot]

Also are you still completely against the idea of an 18yr or older Robin in the movies? How completely, like out of ten

Batman Forever Robin worked more as a concept because Bruce didn’t officially adopt him and Dick was old enough to make his own decisions.


[/FONT]

 

[El Payaso]

Fact, yes. Relevant? No, not at all. I feel the position is ignorant, despite your intelligence.

Again, not explaining why, just calling names.

Again, the position is ignorant. It requires ignoring at least 20 years of comics history and - in a process that I have yet to fully understand - evaluating Robin as simply "a character who lightens up Batman." It requires a thinker to ignore facts such as: A) Robin is not a "light" character, currently. B) Very few characters are fulfilling their original conceptual purpose. C) Characters can be adapted.

A) Robin, if accurate to the comics, still should be an underage in a red costume. That only would put unnecessary light in the dark – and successful - Batman franchise we’re having.

B) Batman is fulfilling the original concept.

C) Batman’s current adaptation doesn’t need of a Robin.

I apologize if the emotional charge of the word has offended anyone. But ignoring facts as plain as these is, by definition, ignorant, is it not?

Not if they’re being assessed, not ignored.

[edit: And aren't we all ignorant on something? No one knows everything, I'm sure there's a few things anyone here could school me on...]

If that’s true, then no one needs to use the word.

Nolan and Bale have made exceptional movies, that's to be sure. I don't think of them as quintessential Batman, though... far from it.

Or – even if they’re not – the closest to it.

Perhaps I am incorrect, and Nolan and Bale are familiar with the Robin/Grayson character and his potential uses, but this has not shown in their statements on the matter. Far from it.

No, they haven’t given a full detailed explanantion of that. The movies being without Robin, though, speak for themselves.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Money.

Actually, from what I understand, the rumor about Bale auditioning for Robin is completely false.

"Merely included to attract a younger audience" is fact.

Also untrue. If you read Bob Kane's explanation for creating Robin, it had nothing to do with "attracting younger audiences", which would be a pretty dumb motive anyways, considering 80-90% of the children at that time read comics. Bob Kane felt, and rightfully so, that even a character like Batman would get stagnant on his own after a while. He never saw Batman as a complete lone wolf, and wanted him to have "a Watson to his Sherlock Holmes". Take into account that Batman, at it's heart, is a detective story, and most noteable detectives have partners.

Not even those who get the characters better than most fans: Nolan, Bale.

I don't know that either of them "get" the character. This is always a weak argument. For someone who claims to know a lot about acting in your last response, this proves you know nothing. I have a couple friends who act, and do a decent job, but when they get a role (like say, A Shakespearean play about Henry V) they don't slavishly research the character until they understand him/her to a T. That script, whether you like it or not, is informed by a wide variety of sources, many of whom are fans. The reason this is such a big issue is because Robin is a natural Year Two/Year Three aspect of Batman, and if you continue the story of him by himself you actually are going to run down a road where you stop "getting" the character. Batman has only so many interesting stories on his own, in fact, he only has about two years worth.

They have to do the hard work; it's easy when you're not doing it to call everyone else ignorants.

There's an old phrase: nobody in Hollywood knows nothing, because well, they don't. Just because one or two movies are produced and do well, doesn't mean the third is automatically great, and many fans here have highlighted some pretty major problems if someone like Dick Grayson is never introduced.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

So Kane did the character for one year only and he was alreadt thinking Batman was going to be stagnant???

Yes, he did, and it turns out he was right, because Batman's popularity skyrocketed after that.

Not every detective figure has to be a Sherlock Holmes cliché so he has to have a sidecick and if that’s the idea, it should have been a real Dr. Watson as in Gordon, a wise old man. Dr. Watson is eveything but a underage colorful sidecick.

There is a difference between a "cliche'" (which this is not) and a motif. For both the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Batman you deal with mentally obsessive people who otherwise deprive themselves of a normal, redeeming social life, by and large devoid of friends and confidants. Gordon will NEVER fulfill a Watson role simply because allowing Gordon to become that close violates their relationship: which is one based on plausible deniability. Robin, Dick Grayson, has no such complusion. Unlike Alfred, Robin provides a character whose goals are similar, but different in approach. As for Robin being colorful? Try reading comics, it might change your perspective. Robin is far from colorful, the original Kane incarnation was often more violent than his mentor. Their relationship, therefore is a symbiotic one. Batman provides discipline, Robin provides a person who has not totally cut himself off, emotionally, from the rest of the world. Not very cliche' at all.

Bad choice from Bob Kane, but as we all know it wasn’t him who made Batman the character he’s today. He didn’t create everything that defined the character and made some bad choices.

And yet this particular choice, stayed, and became virtually inseprable from the character of Batman, so by your own logic, it was far from a bad move at all. Again, it skyrocketed his popularity as an icon.

Not after The Dark Knight.

One good movie wouldn't make up for a potential bad third instalement. I've seen better films (Terminator 2) ruined by future installments, even under the same directors (Superman).

Is Superman doomed to be misunderstood by people if they don’t get him a sidekick? And Spiderman?

Neither of those characters have sidekicks who have become vital to the franchise. In Superman's case, most of his have become more characters in their own light rather than sidekicks. Same with Spider-Man, and thus your comparison is not valid. However, I'll bite. Superman is, in fact, a perfect example, as are X-Men, since both franchises buried themselves by playing it safe and not moving onto other thematically important elements of the franchises. In the case of X-Men they constantly rehashed Wolverine and Magneto, in the case of Superman they never strayed from Lex Luthor.

Exactly, how many interesting stories can he actually have, sir? What’s the exact number?

Probably this one. There really isn't anywhere to go but to add or rehash villains at this point, and for a movie as complex as these those plots run a tad thin.

I have no doubt Nolan can come up with a third movie that will be interesting not involving a colorful underage sidekick. The very ending of TDK suggested a great Batman story where a sidekick is totally unnecessary.

Actually, it kinda didn't. It left him out to pasture.

There's another phrase: nobody in fandom knows nothing, because well, they don't.

Actually they do, because ultimately they keep the characters going and know their ins and outs better than producers and directors do. Jon Favearu, a fan, proved that fans producing movies have incredible effects: two good movies in one summer all because finally the creators (Marvel) exercised creative control.

Just because one movie is good the sequels doesn’t have to be as good.

Fact: TDK was much better than the previous one.

Pure Opinion. Arguable.

So, as you see, seconds or third parts can be great or greater. They don’t have to fail because they don’t necessarily will be “automatically” good.

Second parts are almost always better because the first is usually set-up and leaves a lot to be built upon, but it's on toothpicks.

Sequels are great when the director gets the characters. Nolan’s case.

But maybe he doesn't. X2 while great, never "got" those characters, and I have good reason to believe Nolan doesn't either. I find most Superheroes, regardless of the director "getting" them, can usually create one good outing, if not two. It's not that hard because you can emulate a classic story, but that only takes you so far. In this statement, abandoning Robin, Nolan proves he doesn't "get" the character.

Fans can highlight whatever they want. That doesn’t make any of those speculations any valid argument or a fact. Nolan has already proven he can do better than most fans’ ideas.

This would assume you've read most "fan" ideas, which you haven't.

 

[[A]]

What a sorry little.. thread

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, he did, and it turns out he was right, because Batman's popularity skyrocketed after that.

Yes. My whole point was that Ropbion was introduced to attract a younger audience and it did. Thus its popularity grew.

But that doesn’t prove that the character was doomed to be forgotten or to get stagnant since Robin was introduced long before that could have happened.

There is a difference between a "cliche'" (which this is not) and a motif. For both the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Batman you deal with mentally obsessive people who otherwise deprive themselves of a normal, redeeming social life, by and large devoid of friends and confidants.

That is what Batman does. He fakes a social life merely to conctruct a believable alter ego. Holmes never went to the point to use a disguise. That “Watson need” is merely an artistic choice, not an actual need.

Gordon will NEVER fulfill a Watson role simply because allowing Gordon to become that close violates their relationship: which is one based on plausible deniability.

Watson role was to help Holmes, whether he was close or not. Like Dr. House does with his teams. Batman is trained enough to need little to no help whether fighting or solving a crime. He certaihnly would need someone with more information or wisdom but not a child.

Robin, Dick Grayson, has no such complusion. Unlike Alfred, Robin provides a character whose goals are similar, but different in approach.

Yes. It’s like putting two Batmen in the same story. Unnecessary.

As for Robin being colorful? Try reading comics, it might change your perspective. Robin is far from colorful, the original Kane incarnation was often more violent than his mentor. Their relationship, therefore is a symbiotic one. Batman provides discipline, Robin provides a person who has not totally cut himself off, emotionally, from the rest of the world. Not very cliche' at all.

The couple where one is discipline and the other is emotion? Not cliché???

And yet this particular choice, stayed, and became virtually inseprable from the character of Batman, so by your own logic, it was far from a bad move at all. Again, it skyrocketed his popularity as an icon.

Commercially it was designed to attract more audience. It did. Commerically a succes, artistically, just a dispensable non-essential actor.

I’ve never denied – on the contrary, have always stated – that Robin might work in comic books. Or cartoons. Or even a TV series like the 1966 one.

One good movie wouldn't make up for a potential bad third instalement. I've seen better films (Terminator 2) ruined by future installments, even under the same directors (Superman).

Point is it might or it might not. It’s not doomed to fail just because Robin won’t be there.

Neither of those characters have sidekicks who have become vital to the franchise. In Superman's case, most of his have become more characters in their own light rather than sidekicks. Same with Spider-Man, and thus your comparison is not valid. However, I'll bite. Superman is, in fact, a perfect example, as are X-Men, since both franchises buried themselves by playing it safe and not moving onto other thematically important elements of the franchises. In the case of X-Men they constantly rehashed Wolverine and Magneto, in the case of Superman they never strayed from Lex Luthor.

Sidekicks that are opposite of the main character are not the answer to lack of creativity. A dark sidekick for a light Superman won’t work. Or giving every X-Men an X-sidekick.

Probably this one. There really isn't anywhere to go but to add or rehash villains at this point, and for a movie as complex as these those plots run a tad thin.

Maybe you haven’t considered Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, Talia, etc etc etc. So many characters that Nolan hasn’t used yet and that have so much more to contribute to the Batman story than the colorful underage adopted sidekick.

In this case it’s your lack of creativity what’s using the sidekick card as a(n unneeded) help.

Once again, the last scene in TDK set the premise for a third movie that doesnj’t come close to a need for Robin.

Actually, it kinda didn't. It left him out to pasture.

Batman being chased by Gotham authorities. Sure that goes nowhere. Your lack of creativity and vision doesn’t stop it from being a valid and fertile ground for more stories.

Actually they do, because ultimately they keep the characters going and know their ins and outs better than producers and directors do. Jon Favearu, a fan, proved that fans producing movies have incredible effects: two good movies in one summer all because finally the creators (Marvel) exercised creative control.

One swallow that doesn’t mean automatically a summer.

Steven Johnson was a Daredevil fan and his movie sucked.

The rule doesn’t work.

It is talent what allow artist to have a vision and a good execution of it, not fanatism.

Pure Opinion. Arguable.

Exactly my point about your Hollywood people void statement.

But in TDK case, fans, critics and BO seem to agree.

Second parts are almost always better because the first is usually set-up and leaves a lot to be built upon, but it's on toothpicks.

In fact there’s no safe rule that guarrantees a successful good second part. Batman Returns wasn’t as good as Batman.

But maybe he doesn't. X2 while great, never "got" those characters, and I have good reason to believe Nolan doesn't either.

I have 2 to support that Nolan does: Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

I find most Superheroes, regardless of the director "getting" them, can usually create one good outing, if not two. It's not that hard because you can emulate a classic story, but that only takes you so far. In this statement, abandoning Robin, Nolan proves he doesn't "get" the character.

Pure Opinion. Arguable. AT least until Nolan gets the third movie made.

Nolan gets not only the character but the art of filmmaking so well that he knows what to rescue for the big screen and what to leave in comics. So far it is working more than excellent.

This would assume you've read most "fan" ideas, which you haven't.

This would assume that most "fan" ideas have been done in a more successful way than Nolan’s, which they haven't.

 

[jackshea]

^ you lost all credibility when you suggested talia as a villain, she's way more cliche than robin and batman, who arent cliche b/c they elevated the sherlock watson thing by adding another dimension to an already complex character, talia is the daughter of a dead villain, which is just an excuse to reuse the first plot. and batmans loner extra dark thing has to change, its natural progression, it happened in the comics for a reason, he feels for the kid, he knows what he's doing by training him. even though all-star has faults, it has the best reasoning behind robin, even showing the downside.

 

[ray243]

Seriously, some fans are SOOO desperate to see robin, that they don't care whether the director likes the character.


I mean come on, the last thing a robin fan should do is to force the director into doing what the director dislike.

What makes you think that chris nolan will do justice to the character of robin?


Fans want venom for spiderman 3...and in the end, fans hated that version of venom.



Don't destroy the vision of the director, just to suit your needs.





WAIT for a director who is a robin fan....then talk about adding robin.



Forcing nolan to add robin cannot be good at all. I don't think we like to see a pissed off nolan making the 3rd film with robin inside....





If BB3 sucks due to the fact that robin is added inside, I will know who to blame.


Not nolan, but the robin fanboys.

 

[Ixion]

Does Nolan hate Robin? I've seen him say Robin is in a crib somewhere and not for a few movies down the line (which is a perfectly valid explination), but never seem him say he hates the character, hes never said the character doesn't exist in his universe. Bale seems to hate him but Nolan is quite respectful.

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't understand why people are infuriated by someone for not including a character he probably feels he can't do justice to.

This is respect at its finest. Nolan doesn't feel he can do Robin right, so he doesn't want to, so as not to butcher the character, probably leaving him for a director who does like him and can handle him. That's just good form.