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

[Saint]

What I don't get is why Batman recruited another Robin,

Why wouldn't he? From Bruce's perspective, Dick Grayson would have been a massive success. Bruce accomplished everything he had hoped to with Dick. When the opportunity came to save another boy--even more likely to self destruct than Dick--he took it, hoping it would work out as well as the first. Pbviously it did not, which is why he was so resistant to the idea of there being another Robin when Tim came along.

but fatally flawed on a narrative level.

Except, not at all. I have already explained this. Batman needs someone to prove to him that being Batman doesn't mean he has to stop being human. No one but Robin can do this, because no one else lives that life.

Oops, my bad... I didn't mean "coming of age" but "parenthood relationships". Again, my bad.

Which is just as incorrect.



So, their relationship it's not defined by allegory, is it? It is a reflection of human condition since it's so specific. It's not a discourse on father-son relationships... it is just a relationship between two persons.[/quote]
It's both. Of course it's a discourse on father-son relationships. The relationship embodies the cornerstone of parenthood: giving the child a better life than the parent had. That's what Bruce has always tried to do with Robin; take someone who, like him, is going to go down this path, no matter what, and try to save that person from the pitfalls that Bruce has suffered. He's trying to make them better people than he is.

One thing is the presence of minor conflicts and another is a determing conflict that brought the separation. I don't know about you, but most people I know didn't leave as they grew up because they couldn't live with their parents anymore. It was just the natural thing to do.

It's the natural thing to do because people can't live with their parents any more. A parent will always be a parent, no matter how old the child is, and when someone reaches a certain age, they leave because they cannot live under the parental blanket any longer. To put it crudely, they cannot live under "My house, my rules." This is true of everyone--even people who aren't consciously aware of it. They require independence. Dick required independence.

And Dick lives with Bruce? Didn't he leave Wayne Manor?

I meant as in co-exist, not co-habitate.

But you replied to my concerns aout quality saying that the premise was interesting... which forced me to explain how that didn't matter

Which is wrong. It does matter, hence my reply. Understand that me saying "Yes, it matters," is not the same as saying 'It's the only thing that matters." No, "Interesting" is not the same as good, but it is a part of good, so of course it matters. You can't have good fiction without it.

The fact the Dick was more developed in the Silver Age and Tim in modern comics doesn't mean a thing.

Which is not what I said. I said that your quote from wiki, which claims Tim was a medium between Dick and Jason, directly refutes your claim that Tim was "Lighter" than Grayson. It does. I don't understand how you have misunderstood me. I'm being very clear.

The fact that Dick is always cocky and teasing Bruce doesn't mean a thing.

Blatantly false--a character's termperment is an important factor in determining how "light" or "dark" that character is.

It did serve to support my claim that he was the less defined of the Three.

No, it didn't. I don't know where you're getting this from.

When I say character I mean personality. Without his history with Batman, of course Robin would be different, but you can recreate his personality in film without going through his relationship to Batman.

No. Our relationships shape our personalities. Robin's relationship with Batman has shaped his--which is why he's not the same sort of person today that he was, say, in 1994. You could erase Batman from existence and then write Tim the same way, but then his actions would be hollow and meaningless, as they would not be connected to anything. He would be unknowable, by virtue of having no reason to be the way he is.

And yet he's not emotional enough to get overly-protective with a child he feel identified with,

Accroding to the vast majority of material, he is. Of course he is. I just finished telling you that emotion has ruled his life since he was eight years old. He can't escape it.

If Batman was really empathetic and completely emotion towards Robin, he wouldn't let him to put his life at risk. He wouldn't allow him to be Robin.

As has been said repeatedly, that's not his choice to make. He couldn't stop him if he wanted to.

Whoever said that you were too stubborn to change your mind may have been absolutely right.

You'd be surprised. I change my mind about plenty--and about stuff that's a lot more important than Batman. As an example, I used to be a Catholic.

Dead?

DEAD????

How **cking so?

Simple:

"Nuts to you, Bruce! I'm gonna fight crime anyway! Whoops, I got shot and died because Batman wasn't there to make sure I'm actually freaking competent."

A reformatory to cool his temper as long as he can? Sending to school?

Sending a Dick to school would have stopped him from going out and fighting crime, and dying as a result?

Providing funds to an oprhanage

Would have stopped Dick Grayson from trying to fight crime, and dying as a result?

Listen, Batman has to deal with saving his foes lives all the time... and still sending them to Arkham. If that kid feels the need to go beating people, Batman will understand and commiserate... but he won't enable him to risk his and other's lives. He will be treated as criminal, for it is a crime what he is doing.

Oh, so Batman is going to send him to prison, subjecting him to precisely the kind of life that Batman would want to save him from? And send him to prison for what, exactly? "Uh, Commissioner... this kid told me he wants to fight crime. Can we send him to prison for that telling me he wants to do something? Nevermind why he told me. I'm not Batman."

Can you define that?

I can tell you tell you that some of the things that may not warrant response are the following: points I've already addressed, points that have become muddied and separated from the issue, points that are irrelevant, and points to which the response should be obvious.

 

[The Guard]

It's just laughable to me that the argument against an inherently flawed character doing something inherently flawed is "But...that's...that's FLAWED."

And that then they try to use Chris Nolan's interpretation of events as some sort of proof that what works in comics isn't right for a serious or mature version of the character. Even though Nolan ALSO presents Bruce Wayne as an inherently flawed character doing flawed things.

 

[Saint]

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps and dancing around things with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps. I'm not going to play the "Well, that metaphor won't work well, because you didn't directly reference a masked vigilante and his masked accomplice" games.

So we're going to abandon semantic arguments, and we're going to get back to the core issues here, not sheer opinion. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

Sigh. If only I had seen this before I wasted more time writing a response.

 

[protoctista]

There's flaws we can accept and there's flaws which remove the character's validity as a hero.

Flaws I'd accept;
- Batman not necessarily being a shining beacon of justice
- Batman being slightly insane
- Batman constantly refusing to break his one rule despite the obvious benefit of not doing so


Flaws I won't accept;
- Batman raping anyone
- Batman taking a less than professional interest in paedophillia
- Batman hiring a 12 year old boy to fight crime in a ridiculously unprotective costume, putting not only the boy in danger, but completely undermining his every motive - to prevent what happened to him happening to others, to ensure that the burden is his alone

 

[The Batman]

It's just laughable to me that the argument against an inherently flawed character doing something inherently flawed is "But...that's...that's FLAWED."

And that then they try to use Chris Nolan's interpretation of events as some sort of proof that what works in comics isn't right for a serious or mature version of the character. Even though Nolan ALSO presents Bruce Wayne as an inherently flawed character doing flawed things.

Honestly...this debate is basically saying that people can say more negative things about the concept of robin then, say the concept of catwoman...which dosent mean that the concept of robin should not be used in a nolan film

 

[Franklin Richards]

- Batman hiring a 12 year old boy to fight crime in a ridiculously unprotective costume, putting not only the boy in danger, but completely undermining his every motive - to prevent what happened to him happening to others, to ensure that the burden is his alone

I guess you don't like Batman then.

 

[Crook]

No, it just means you're not a fan of that aspect of the character. I'd be much more accepting if that 12, were turned to a 16.

 

[The Joker]

I'm pretty sure you and saint have already won the debate, as far as most are concerned

Yep, about 5 pages back!

 

[The Batman]

No, it just means you're not a fan of that aspect of the character. I'd be much more accepting if that 12, were turned to a 16.

Which is what has happened before when robin was adapted...in fact, the ONLY people who keep bringing up this 12 years old crap are the haters...if you're going to debate against robin being in nolans films, drop this argument. its irrelevant.

 

[Crook]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not a hater of anything, especially the character. Nor am I arguing against his appearance in Nolan's trilogy. In fact, I've been arguing for his inclusion since even before the BB days.

But I will not be in favor of an actual 12-year old on-screen fighting baddies. Step away from the comics for a second and look at actual kids of this age and tell me if you can even begin to take them seriously as a vigilante. Robin's motivations and characterization are fine. His age at when he starts fighting, to me, is not.

 

[Melkay]

...in fact, the ONLY people who keep bringing up this 12 years old crap are the haters...

Good to know that you haven't really followed the debate and don't know what you're talking about.
Unless you mean that the pro-Robins are the haters...

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps and dancing around things with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps. I'm not going to play the "Well, that metaphor won't work well, because you didn't directly reference a masked vigilante and his masked accomplice" games.

So we're going to abandon semantic arguments, and we're going to get back to the core issues here, not sheer opinion. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

Congratulations, Guard. But don't stop posting because it's your birthday. Stop posting because it's Friday night. I know I will.

And since you can't get around semantics (or distinguish a flaw from a contradiction), here is some reading material from Protoctista, for after you have blown the candles:

There's flaws we can accept and there's flaws which remove the character's validity as a hero.

Flaws I'd accept;
- Batman not necessarily being a shining beacon of justice
- Batman being slightly insane
- Batman constantly refusing to break his one rule despite the obvious benefit of not doing so
Flaws I won't accept;
- Batman raping anyone
- Batman taking a less than professional interest in paedophillia
- Batman hiring a 12 year old boy to fight crime in a ridiculously unprotective costume, putting not only the boy in danger, but completely undermining his every motive - to prevent what happened to him happening to others, to ensure that the burden is his alone.

Good night ladies and gentlemen. Tip your waitresses and all that. t:

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Well technically Batman didn't allow or want Dick to fight at all in the beginning, that's a point many miss. He only trained him to take care of himself and then allow the boy to see his parents killer brought to justice like Bruce never did. That was all. But Dick persisted and made the Robin persona without Bruce's knowledge and used it once to defeat Two-Face and Joker when they entered the Batcave, saving Bruce's identity. From there Batman realised that Dick was going to fight crime even if Bruce didn't let him and reluctantly agreed to train him, eventually seeing him as a vital ally. The training as by Robin: Year One is generally seen as taking place over a year, which coupled together with the events of Dark Victory would make him what? Thirteen, thirteen and a half, fourteen when he first entered action as allowed by Bruce. Actually if you take NML and Fugitive storylines in yur continuity (where it states Nightwing's age and how long Bruce has been fighting) it really makes it impossible for Robin to not be atleast fourteen when he made his official debut (excluding the Batcave bit in Dark Victory).

So the Batman "hiring" him logic doesn't work, neither does the "flawed" lgic because ultimately that's the point, it isn't totally right but Bruce sees no alternative, Dick would just go out and do this anyway without the training (as seen in Robin: Year One).

 

[The Batman]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not a hater of anything, especially the character. Nor am I arguing against his appearance in Nolan's trilogy. In fact, I've been arguing for his inclusion since even before the BB days.

But I will not be in favor of an actual 12-year old on-screen fighting baddies. Step away from the comics for a second and look at actual kids of this age and tell me if you can even begin to take them seriously as a vigilante. Robin's motivations and characterization are fine. His age at when he starts fighting, to me, is not.

And I'm saying...no one is....which seems to me is a complaint alot of people are using.Honestly, like i've said, i am not pouring through pages and pages, and paragraph upon paragraph.It seems to me people are acting as if nolan would hypothetically use a 12 year old. I'm just going by the complaints and the purpose of this topic (this point is more for melkey): Discussing a potential robin on screen, and if he should be in a nolan film. Melkay seems to have forgotten when i said that i didnt really give a damn about his pointless semantic ridden argument which he lost a long time ago.

 

[Crook]

Well technically Batman didn't allow or want Dick to fight at all in the beginning, that's a point many miss. He only trained him to take care of himself and then allow the boy to see his parents killer brought to justice like Bruce never did. That was all. But Dick persisted and made the Robin persona without Bruce's knowledge and used it once to defeat Two-Face and Joker when they entered the Batcave, saving Bruce's identity.

Who exactly missed this? I am pretty sure any Batman fan worth a damn would know this. It's hardly something that would be overlooked.

From there Batman realised that Dick was going to fight crime even if Bruce didn't let him and reluctantly agreed to train him, eventually seeing him as a vital ally. The training as by Robin: Year One is generally seen as taking place over a year, which coupled together with the events of Dark Victory would make him what? Thirteen, thirteen and a half, fourteen when he first entered action as allowed by Bruce. Actually if you take NML and Fugitive storylines in yur continuity (where it states Nightwing's age and how long Bruce has been fighting) it really makes it impossible for Robin to not be atleast fourteen when he made his official debut (excluding the Batcave bit in Dark Victory).

13 or 14 is only slightly less ridiculous than 12. Again, I urge you to interact with kids of this age and explain how this concept would even work plausibly.

I feel like I'm the only one that realizes how small and harmless these children are. Are the tv shows and movies ruining the factual image of adolescence? For example, I can assure you that these nearly 30-year olds playing high school characters aren't even remotely close to reality. Nor for these teens that play children.

 

[Melkay]

I'm just going by the complaints and the purpose of this topic (this point is more for melkey): Discussing a potential robin on screen, and if he should be in a nolan film. Melkay seems to have forgotten when i said that i didnt really give a damn about his pointless semantic ridden argument which he lost a long time ago.

It is evident too me that you haven't read the actual debate. I am the one who has been been trying to bring the subject back to the films, especially the current franchise. In fact, Guard was the one who said:

The unchanged origin works just fine. There are no inconsistencies inherent. You just want there to be. Some of you just lack imagination.

And I was the one who said this...

So, suddenly you're okay with Robin?

Yes. Emphatically yes. I've said before that I like the character individually. I even liked Jason Todd, even regretted his death, and still do. I only wanted a proper adaptation of the origin story. Failing to get that, I wouldn't want Robin in film.

I'm even more than happy with Crook's suggestion of being faithful the the traditional origin story, but just making the the training time longer so the teenager improbability thing can be removed.

It's not about rethoric or smeantics, only when we get stuck in a multi-quoting circle. I know I cannot stop adressing things other said because it would be disrespectful.
But now that you know what the debate is about, we can all hear what you think about it.

 

[The Batman]

It is evident too me that you haven't read the actual debate. I am the one who has been been trying to bring the subject back to the films, especially the current franchise. In fact, Guard was the one who said:

Yes...I was hoping itd be evident due to bloody fact that I told you i didnt give a damn about it before.

And I was the one who said this...



I'm even more than happy with Crook's suggestion of being faithful the the traditional origin story, but just making the the training time longer so the teenager improbability thing can be removed.

It's not about rethoric or smeantics, only when we get stuck in a multi-quoting circle. I know I cannot stop adressing things other said because it would be disrespectful.
But now that you know what the debate is about, we can all hear what you think about it.

I'm sure what you said was nice....except for the fact that this is the third time i'm telling you that I dont really care...I only noticed you spouting all this BS about Robin in the comics in regards to his relationship with Batman

 

[itsthebatman]

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps and dancing around things with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps. I'm not going to play the "Well, that metaphor won't work well, because you didn't directly reference a masked vigilante and his masked accomplice" games.

So we're going to abandon semantic arguments, and we're going to get back to the core issues here, not sheer opinion. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

Fine by me. Happy birthday!

 

[hatebox]

The thing is, whether you're pro or con Robin, we can all agree that Batman is still great on his own. And we've only had 4 films on that. I want many more before Robin is introduced, because there's still much more to explore with Batman solo. Much, much more.

 

[Melkay]

like i've said, i am not pouring through pages and pages, and paragraph upon paragraph.

Melkay seems to have forgotten when i said that i didnt really give a damn

I told you i didnt give a damn about it before.

this is the third time i'm telling you that I dont really care...

I only noticed you spouting all this BS about Robin in the comics in regards to his relationship with Batman

My condolences; you're hopeless.

The thing is, whether you're pro or con Robin, we can all agree that Batman is still great on his own. And we've only had 4 films on that. I want many more before Robin is introduced, because there's still much more to explore with Batman solo. Much, much more.

See? This is a very healthy post.

Good friday night, everybody! See you on sunday.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps and dancing around things with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps. I'm not going to play the "Well, that metaphor won't work well, because you didn't directly reference a masked vigilante and his masked accomplice" games.

So we're going to abandon semantic arguments, and we're going to get back to the core issues here, not sheer opinion. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

Guard, you are the most thorough debater I know... you've been fighting this guy for days at least... at this point nobody takes him seriously... you've earned a rest. And happy birthday, man.

I'm pretty sure you and saint have already won the debate, as far as most are concerned

Yeah, QFT. I wish I hadn't gotten into it so late, but Guard and Saint are two of my favorite debaters around here, even though I don't always agree with them. I appreciate Melkay's tenacity but he's out of his league and has been from the start.

 

[CConn]

Hell yes. They just need to make sure he's played by a 40 year old woman like in all of those Peter Pan movies.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Hell yes. They just need to make sure he's played by a 40 year old woman like in all of those Peter Pan movies.

CONNIE!!! Good God, man, I thought you'd abandoned this place!

Good to see you again, sir.

 

[CConn]

I was in the Sudan hunting wild wolverines and listening to Devo.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It's just laughable to me that the argument against an inherently flawed character doing something inherently flawed is "But...that's...that's FLAWED."

And that then they try to use Chris Nolan's interpretation of events as some sort of proof that what works in comics isn't right for a serious or mature version of the character. Even though Nolan ALSO presents Bruce Wayne as an inherently flawed character doing flawed things.

Yeah, so just for kicks I went back and read what Melkay wrote in response to my final posts from last night... and good God. Speaking of strawman arguments and semantics traps... it just gets worse and worse with that guy.

Reading what he wrote about his time in Cuba, though, tells me that much more interesting than a debate about Batman's psychology would be Melkay's psychological profile, because I think the reasons for his attitude towards children and violence become much more clear.

Maybe his Dad is El Payaso? t:

 

[SheldonLevene]

To be honest I think seeing Nolan take on Robin would be one of the more interesting things he could attempt at this point.

lol that came out terribly but I really don't know how else to word it.