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

[The Guard]

I'll gladly oblige soon as you type a sentence that fits said criteria of personal opinion. When you write out statements that leave no basis for subjectivity, I'm going to rightly assume you're putting it out as fact.

I don't care if you oblige me. If you insist on going around thinking that people's statements are being presented as fact if everything they say doesn't say "IMO" before it, that's your business.

I consider absurdity to be something which is wildly illogical or just plain stupid. It's a negative connotation, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to look at it in a positive light.

I don't believe "absurd" has to have a negative connotation. I consider absurdity to mean what the dictionary says it means, or more specifically, the definition that fits in this context. The other definitions have to do with incongruities (which is somewhat relevant) or life being meaningless, which isn't relevant to this context.

absurd - inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense

A lot of concepts are "absurd". That doesn't mean they don't have value.

There is a distinct lack of reason and logic in dressing up as a bat-themed vigilante to try to rid your city of crime, and believing that one wouldn't be killed or injured, or constantly hunted by the police, or that things would improve on any level. "Dressing like a giant bat will scare criminals" just isn't reason or logic enough to make this palpable. Common sense dictates otherwise. Therefore, I feel that the idea of dressing up like a bat to fight crime is absurd. In the context of Robin, dressing up in bright reds, greens and yellows to do so, without any head armor or better disguise, is also absurd to me. So I called it "absurd".

Are costumed heroes a silly concept? To an extent, yes. To another, they're perfectly plausible. You'd need to have a few screws loose in your head to take up vigilantism, so playing dress-up isn't too far out of that skewed mentality.

"Perfectly plausible" is a bit of a stretch. "Absurdity", in this context, means "the perceived absurdity of the manner a masked vigilante uses to fight crime".

It's a fictional character. Of course he's gonna be capable of everything he does. My point is Robin's plausibility of existence at that point is an incredible stretch in comparison to other characters of the mythos. Fantasy elements aside, all good literary characters are grounded with realistic sensibilities. Dick could have all the heart in the world, I would not doubt that for one second. But that isn't enough. Physically, he will not be
able to keep up with the standards his heart has set out.

The "realistic sensibilities" you speak of exist in Robin. He's young, and he's not as strong as larger people. So the comics have invented a more realisitic explanation for his survival. He's very, very, very good at what he does.

Yes, it's a stretch that he survives his mission.

But why is it any more a stretch than an adult?

Because he's a kid?

He's a hell of a skilled kid.

Can you make the argument that, because a young person isn't quite as "tall" or "strong" as someone older that he couldn't possibly defeat them in a fight, no matter how fast or skilled he is?

I said I've met people who share similarities with Bruce. As in guys in their mid-20s with incredible tenacity along with acute physical and mental skill that would impress most people. I don't recall saying I've met the real-world equivalent of a comic book Bruce Wayne.

I didn't say you had. I asked if you had. I'm trying to figure out why you even bring up people that you know in this conversation. Franklly, I'm unsure why you insist on bringing up people you know in the first place, as if the idea is any easier to believe somehow, than the fictional concept we're presented with in the mythos.

Depends on what we're referring to here. There are different standards that apply. Science and magic, for example, hold a different standard than capabilities of a "real" person.

I do not recall asking to "rate" things on a scale of believeability. Shall we list the elements of Batman's mythos that are hard to believe, period?

The two major ones are that he is a man going around in a cape and cowl fighting crime in a violent manner and

1. Not being sought out by police
2. Not dying

I understand this. Let me repeat again that the suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

Why, because you say so?

Even though I know that Superman can't exist, I believe Superman exists in Superman comics because the science is at least vaguely referenced and backed up there, and because enjoying Superman requires me to suspend my disbelief to that level.

Robin, and the idea of costumed vigilantes in general, requires a similar suspension of disbelief.

You basically have to believe that a kid with a lot of training can hold his own, and not be killed when he goes out as a vigilante, just as you have to believe that a grown man can hold his own against impossible odds, and not be killed when he goes out in a cape and cowl.

I fail to see how it's THAT much harder to buy an ultra-skilled kid VS an ultra-skilled adult, in the context of an immense work of fiction and fantasy. But hey, that's me.

Some people need to know what number of hours of training someone would need in order never to be killed when they go out as a masked vigilante.

In the case of a vigilante, factors such as physical condition, size, and age play into how believable these characters will come across to an audience.

Why would size and age have anything to do with whether someone is a capable fighter?

I'm sure I don't need to point out why 12-year old Dick Grayson stands out from 40-year old Bruce Wayne.

No, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether it's believeable that the kid, this amazingly skilled kid, could hold his own against most criminals.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that, for almost 70 years, this 12 year old (who did get older), has been portrayed as able to hold his own because of his training.

That allows me to suspend my disbelief.

You misunderstand, I am not arguing that fighting is solely about size. I'm refuting your statement that implies size plays no role.

I never said "size plays no role". I implied that size implies no inherent weakness or disadvantage for the character Robin. It is, in fact, an advantage for him.

Well then you're mixing an argument you've had with someone else. I realize in the past few days you've been talking about comics with Melkay, but this thread and everyone else has been about Robin's translation to film.

And again, almost no one has asked for a Robin that is twelve. Most people want to see a Robin who is older, who spends a few years training. So when you make statements like:

"I'm gonna have to ask why people are so adamant for Robin to begin at 12. Honestly. Why does it have to be so young? What exactly is wrong with Dick being taken under Bruce's wing at this age, and spending a few years training?"

I just kind of wonder why you even made the statement.

 

[raybia]

First of all I don't want Nolan to bring Robin or Dick Grayson into the picture. Its not necessarily that I don't want to see the character included, I just don't want Nolan to be the one.

You see, I suspect that Nolan views the character as absurd and I don't want him to force a character into his world that he doesn't see a place for.

I think it better for Nolan to do the next movie which would complete his trilogy and then I'm assuming that after 9 years he will be ready to move on from Batman at least as a director but I would love to see him stay as an Executive producer.

Let the next director tackle the character of Dick Grayson/Robin. Also there is nothing that says that director has stay within the same boundaries of Nolan. I think it should be more action/adventure like the first Indiana Jones movie but play the relationship between Bruce and Dick as a father and son as portrayed in Road to Perdition and and a student/mentor as portrayed in the first Star Wars between Obi Wan and Luke.

It would be the first movie were some of Dick's potential is shown and then the 2nd movie were the audience can see how much he has grown under Bruce's training.

Then in the 3rd movie, Dick finally becomes Robin and shows that he is a bad ass by that point though certainly no where close to Batman himself.

 

[The Joker]

this is my first post so go easy guys. just a thought of what robin/ grayson could look like

I really like that! Who's the actor there?

 

[cmarpro]

thanks! its just a photo of a model, i dont know his name.

 

[X Knight]

while I don't want to see Robin in the 3rd film ( it's still too early in Batman's career ), I wouldn't mind seeing "hints" of him.

For example, there might be a newspaper article about a visiting circus act that mentions the "Flying Graysons." Or, perhaps, Bruce runs into a young Dick Grayson at an event or something.....

For that matter, I'd like to see the same with Barbara Gordon ( Batgirl ). I know that Gordon's son got most of the screen time in TDK. But in the next film, I'd like to see Barbara get a little more attention with some hints as to her future as Batgirl.....

 

[COMPO]

First of all I don't want Nolan to bring Robin or Dick Grayson into the picture. Its not necessarily that I don't want to see the character included, I just don't want Nolan to be the one.

You see, I suspect that Nolan views the character as absurd and I don't want him to force a character into his world that he doesn't see a place for.

I think it better for Nolan to do the next movie which would complete his trilogy and then I'm assuming that after 9 years he will be ready to move on from Batman at least as a director but I would love to see him stay as an Executive producer.

Let the next director tackle the character of Dick Grayson/Robin. Also there is nothing that says that director has stay within the same boundaries of Nolan. I think it should be more action/adventure like the first Indiana Jones movie but play the relationship between Bruce and Dick as a father and son as portrayed in Road to Perdition and and a student/mentor as portrayed in the first Star Wars between Obi Wan and Luke.

It would be the first movie were some of Dick's potential is shown and then the 2nd movie were the audience can see how much he has grown under Bruce's training.

Then in the 3rd movie, Dick finally becomes Robin and shows that he is a bad ass by that point though certainly no where close to Batman himself.

yeah thats how I've always seen that relationship of batman n robin the same as obi wan and luke. But I'd say Dick becomes Robin at the end of the the 2nd movie and then then the third have him leave to become Nighwing.

 

[Ere]

this is my first post so go easy guys. just a thought of what robin/ grayson could look like

I don't like that pic. The last thing I would want to see in a Bat-movie is a Robin who looks like a punk

 

[raybia]

yeah thats how I've always seen that relationship of batman n robin the same as obi wan and luke. But I'd say Dick becomes Robin at the end of the the 2nd movie and then then the third have him leave to become Nighwing.

Way too quick to become Nightwing.

 

[The Guard]

I stopped multi quoting because I'm tired of semantic trap arguments.

You're largely just rambling at this point, and I'm left to hang on and look for some semblance of our prior discussion.

So.... you want me to agree with you to not be closedminded? Did you have a lobotomy recently? I don't think it works on film, and I could not say something I don't believe. I am not sticking to my guns, if I did I wouldn't want Robin in film. But I am proposing an adaptation. That's what I'm doing, like Ace Of Knaves, for instance. I don't like the character, I don't like what has been done in comics with Batman, but I do believe some of that (only the main problems) can be fixed with a slight adaptation. That's all. Maybe you don't get the concept of closemindedness either.

I don't care if you agree with me. Simply saying "It doesn't make sense because I can't buy it outright" and refusing to consider the other viewpoint and using ridiculous random quotes from comic books to prove your point is not the attitude of an openminded person. Assessing the entire mythology? That's a different story.

Why? That doesn't have any logic. I'm arguing against their unchanged partnership because I'm arguing against its quality. I can't argue against its relevance. And I said this multiple times before, especially in the last post. Another reason for you not to quote that.

Why? Because Robin's relevance, Melkay, involves him working with Batman. If you remove that element, you remove one of his relevances to the mythology. No one has advocated an "unchanged partnership". This is the point you continue to miss in all your ranting.

You have been arguing against Robin's relevance for days, as you argue against the nature of his relationship with Batman. And your argument about quality has nothing concrete behind it so far. None of the issues you've raised are inherent "quality" issues, and almost all of the issues you've raised, things like Batman having a contradictory characterization...exist both in the comics and the movies. This is another point you continue to overlook, which is somewhat baffling.

The term was yours, pal. You were the one who said those stories wre personal stories that didn't need Batman. You.

What? Where, precisely, did I say that?

.... really?

Yes. Really. I tend not to argue with opinions. If someone says to me "I don't like Robin", I usually leave it at that. I'm arguing with you because you're saying things like "I think Robin is a contradiction to Batman's characterization that hurts Batman's characterization", because it is essentially a fact that this is not the case. The mythos have shown this for years, and the nature of Batman himself shows this.

"Everything I say is my opinion, and me speaking for myself. I would think, again, that this would be obvious." - Guard

This is me saying that everything I say is my opinion. Not arguing against someone else's opinion.

The closest I've come to arguing against an opinion here is me saying that Crook lacks imagination because he can't buy a 12 year old Robin. And even this is an argument based in logic on some level.

The writers got around the coming of age issue by adding different conflicts to the next ones, but having one Robin after the other without Bruce caring to make something more on the long-term (El Payaso's orphanage idea) seems a little odd and convenient. Conveniency is a normal and innocuous creative tool until it reaches the point of reader disbelief. And the story then becomes "less good", because it's not working with the established rules of that world.

Sure, it reaches a point of "reader disbelief" on some level, but the idea is to suspend your disbelief so that you can enjoy the story. On another note...Wow. You're whining about the use of "convenience" in the context comic book world.

Good luck with that.

"Don't get me started"? Is that a cop out I'm reading there?

Uh, no, I was trying to save everyone the trouble of reading all the "convenient" elements in the Batman mythology.

I do understand how fiction works. More than you would think. I deal with it on a daily basis. That's why I keep pointing out at the convenient thing... we all know what the writers want: sell. But, despite the obvious truths Saint has said, marketing can and has compromised narrative quality many times before. I'm pointed out at what writers wanted and how successfully were they at having their way or not. We do it with TV series all the time, when an actor gets fired and they give us the explanation for it.... do we buy it? It depends on the writing, and how forced or uncalled for was the decision.

If you understand the nature of fiction, what's the point of dragging this out? What do you want me to say, Melkay? It's fiction. It's marketed fiction. The Batman movies are chock full of a similar kind of writing style, the same convenient plot twists to create drama, etc. I don't write like that myself, but nor do I condemn every little element that is "convenient" in a project simply because it exists.

You know the levels of disbelief in film are much higher than in literature.

Uh, no. I don't "know" that. Because it's not always true.

And for 70 years the same comics told us that Batman is fully dedicated to protecting any human life... and for 70 years readers had time to compare his training level to Robin's. And that's contradictory.

(Shakes head)

How? How is it specifically contradictory?

You're telling me because Robin isn't AS skilled as Batman...Batman wouldn't let him operate?

That's clearly not the case.

You're telling me that because Batman values human life, he'd forbid anyone else from fighting crime?

That's also clearly not the case.

I'll repeat this:

For almost 70 years...Batman has employed costumed allies. He has done so willingly most of the time.

You have no proof that he would not do so, except for your ridiculous assertion that "Batman values all life" (which has almost NEVER prevented him from allowing costumed allies) and so he would not allow his allies to work with him, because he values their lives.

Yes, Batman values all life, but he does not and never has allowed that to prevent others from joining his mission, which is about protecting life.

Batman's people are well trained. They are very, very, very good.

They.
Have.
The.
Training.

The comics have shown them acquiring the training, talking about the training, seeking out the training, and shown them using the training, and succeeding in doing so.

And they have not just trained with Batman, but with others.

Cassandra Cain was trained by David Cain, one of the greatest martial artists in the world. Tim Drake studied with Lady Shiva when he just beginning as Robin. And Tim was eventually able to take on Lady Shiva, one of the greatest martial artists in the world. He got his ASS handed to him at first, but he did at last, best her. They've all studied with Richard Dragon at one point or another. Many of them have studied with Connor Hawke, the second Green Arrow, who is also one of the finest martial artists in the world.

And before that, Batman, another of the world's greatest, trained them hard.

But they've not "trained" enough?

Even though the comics show that they have?

Wow.

Just...wow.

Any contradictions you find here are in your head, and a result of your distinct lack of acceptance of what is in the comics, and perhaps worse, your lack of imagination.

You seem insistent that Batman have no contradictions to his character in relation to how much he values life. That might make sense on a purely logical level, but Batman isn't purely logical.

I'm completely willing to accept that there are dangers that go along with being Robin. I'm willing to accept that it's not a great idea to allow a kid to fight crime. I even see what you're talking about as far as "he would need a lot of training".

But I'm not so closeminded that I forget to take other elements of Batman's character into account simply because I know he values life and want to stick to that, and I'm not so closeminded that I just rant and rant about how no amount of traniing under five years is believeable for Robin to be able to survive crimefighting.

Partially because I have an imagination, and I am capable of interpreting what happens in a story and believing it to be true, despite what I know about the "real world".

I'm not saying he doesn't do it. I'm saying it's not congruent with other aspects of his character. Just because you're too rigid to not take things for granted because of longevity doesn't mean the rest have to do the same.

It's got nothing to do with rigidity. There are many elements of the mythology I don't care for, and many I'm willing to bend on.

My knowledge and assessment of Batman is based on Batman. Yours is based on some random reinvention of the character you have in your head. Hey, good luck with ignoring what the mythology tells you the character will and won't do and coming up with your own approach.

Absense of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absense, right? That's the same argument I sue to convince people that Batman's next villain will be Donald Duck. (and they say I'm the one in denial)

Donald Duck becoming a Batman villain is a possibility, however remote.

It's very unlikely that he would be in the third Batman film, but possible on some level.

Agreed. He would only take a fully prepared partner. A mildly disobedient 12-year-old boy with less than 5 years of training wouldn't be a prepared partner. Or any minor for that matter.

Which class in college did you attend that taught you that "five years of training" is the exact amount of training one would need in order to be able to fight crime without dying?

Not at all. There are other ways to achieve dignity. If Bale knew you, maybe he'd say something like "Guard whines like a little girl". You know, some karma at work.

He might. Why on Earth would I care what Bale said about me?

Let me seee... you.

"You like the tradition of Gordon...because you've grown attached to him...but those of us who have grown attached to Robin because he's always been the one selected to fill a particular role in the mythos somehow have to have better reasons for an attachment?"

Semantics, huh?

Cute. I meant "You never said you were attached to Gordon".

And this is what I mean by semantics. You're so intent on disproving every little bit of what someone says, that you'll jump on every word that is incorrect.

That said...

Do you like the idea of Gordon and Batman's alliance and friendship, Melkay?

Do you like the tradition of using Gordon in the mythos?

Would you be pleased to see a Batman mythos with no Gordon?

So, a name change was more than enough for you to make a different character. I'm right again.

No...I said very clearly:

and that the character elements could remain intact.

You're trying to argue with semantics again. About something that doesn't even matter.

... there, there. So you dislike semantics all the time but you want the drop it when the wind it's no in your favor.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Guardie.

Feeling you out, Melkay. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wanted to see which way you'd jump if this got longwinded.

WHAT? I meant unfaithful? Let me humor you: I said before that Batman doesn't have any power over his relationship with Catwoman. When she commits a crime, he hunts her. From time to time, he spares her (something not out of the realm of his character) and in other rare times he works with her, but that's not a partnership he's responsible for. She's not his protegé. She's not a minor. She has proven herself quite prepared.
And everything she does still doesn't make Bruce trust her enough to be a part of the family. And rightfully so. Their relationship have too little in common with the topic in question.

O...k. What does this have to do with anything we've been discussing?

 

[The Guard]

Riiight... one of his identity is that of a masked vigilante... and that identity makes him slowly lose his own identity, embracing more and more of the traits he created upon his 'creature', of his Bat-man.
But hey, he created the Batman persona (his second identity) to preserve his humanity. And yet, it slowly eroded it. What an irony.

I didn't say he didn't need a mask or a disguise, Melkay, I said "He doesn't need a double identity".

"Double identity" means "two identities", does it not?

He does not need two of them in order to fight crime.

The comics, again, have proven this, when he abandons his "Bruce Wayne" persona and Wayne's affairs and duties from time to time.

And he would not logically even need "Batman" to fight crime, either. If the idea of "Batman" never existed, Bruce Wayne could still fight crime in some capacity.

And he doesn't need a dual identity to fight crime! No! He does it just for fun. He can take off the mask and hunt dangerous supervillains without it, anyday. And, in case the place was dark and someone didn't recognize him, he could say "I'm Bruce Wayne and I'll be waiting for your visit after I foil all your evil plans". Who cares about keeping his first identity secret? It's not crucial to crime-fighting, anyway... is it?

He could take off the mask and hunt supervillains without it, and he could abandon his "Bruce Wayne" side and just be Batman fulltime as well. He doesn't have to maintain both. He maintains both because he wants to keep his humanity intact as Bruce Wayne.

So ergo, he doesn't need a "double identity".

Fun with semantics.

... For the right reasons? Or for marketing and tradition purposes? Writers are supposed to maintain the general mythos, especially one as big as Robin, no matter how good its premise is.
Are you arguing about quality here or not?

Am I arguing...quality? What?

Not really. He is flawed, and should be... but not contradictory. And now that can't be changed in comics (read the previous quote) at least it shouldn't be transferred to film. Change it or leave it.

In one part of the setence, you say "He is flawed, and should be"....and in the next part of it, you say "but not contradictory".

Where are you getting the idea that none of his flaws should involve contradictions?

Off the top of my head....

Batman fights to uphold the law...by breaking the law.
Batman fights to protect people and bring peace...with violence.
Batman cares about people...but rarely allows himself to show it.

He's always had contradictions inherent in his character, Melkay.

Batman values his friends and allies lives...but allows them to go into battle with him.

And he's already contradictory on film. Guy who wants to protect people, who values life? Shazam! Now he's RUNNING OVER POLICE CARS and DROPPING BOMBS IN THEIR PATH! Guy who says he won't kill, fights with himself not to kill? Shazam! He kills! Guy wants to save Gotham? Shazam! It's too hard to bear, so he quits!

Still seemingly lost on you is the fact that Batman has almost always been contradictory on some level. About several elements of his character.

But nooo...he'd never be contradictory in the way he was portrayed as being for almost 70 years.

Those 68 years were all a mistake, nothing but a marketing ploy!

The concept not being the Batcave but the fact that it has been the most discovered Batman base. It defies logic and odds. It's just a flawed part of the concept, not the entire idea. And that's the part that should be removed, correcting the entire concept.

Robin's age when he started fighting crime is a wrong part of a larger concept. Change that idea to fix the concept. I'm not arguing againt the presence of Robin in comics... I'm arguing against the quality of that presence. Change the quality and keep the concept. Easy logic.

Umm...a large part of the point of Robin as a concept is that he's a kid. To say that is "wrong" in the concept...makes no sense. To say it's a bit hard to believe...that's one thing. But "wrong"?

We could argue about the quality of the cave's presence in the mythos, too, in general. Probably shouldn't go there, though.

?????

"The unchanged origin works just fine."
- Guard

Melkay, this is not me arguing against changing or adapting an origin...it's a statement about how the unchanged origin works just fine.

This is like if I said "I enjoy plain toast", and someone jumping all over me acting like I said that toast cannot be improved beyond "plain".

How do you get the idea that this me arguing against the idea of adapting the Robin origin?

I can imagine lots of things. I just want to know what the wirters imagined. When I, as a reader, can come up with a better adaptation of their work, things are not going well.

Riiight.

So, by your logic, any literary work or movie is suddenly subpar because I can think of a few different ideas for some elements of it?

And now you tell people that it's their own fault they don't enjoy bad stories?

Uh, no...did I say that?

There's a difference between a concept that is difficult to believe without a major suspension of disbelief and a "bad story", Melkay.

Look again for what Robert McKee said about melodrama, unrealistic motivations and bad writing. You can search the "McKee" as a key word. I posted it.

I'm familiar with it.

Melodrama is a part of movies and comic books. Even the best movies have some.

Unrealistic motivations...isn't really an issue with Batman and Robin as they've been portrayed in the comics, anymore than any of Bruce's other motivations are unrealistic, or for that matter, the motivations of other classic literary characters.

"Bad writing" isn't something you can apply to an entire concept like Robin, except in opinion.

I get it. You think Robin, as presented in the comics, is a bad concept because it contradicts the Batman you made up in your head.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Use your imagination for this scene: Alfred sees Batman get down from the Batmobile with little Robin. This is the first time Alfred sees the boy in costume, and asks in a worried voice: "Sir, are you taking young master Richard with you on your work?" "Sure, Alfred, why not?" "Well, is he prepared?" "Yeah, he is. I've been giving him classes since last week".

Uh...while I can imagine that (In a poorly written Batman comic book where the author has no concept of the mythology), what is the point of you posting a scene that would likely never happen in the Batman mythology?

And speaking of "bad writing"...

For me, a 12 year-old starting his training and his side-kick field missions at the same age.... TWELVE... is not realistic.

What's your point?

Not sure if you're talking about the comics or the movies,

Regardless...hey, guess what? The idea of a grown man in a bat costume going out and not getting his cape stuck in things and being shot in the face multiple times isn't particularly realistic. Doesn't stop me from enjoying it.

The comics are rarely entirely realistic.

Neither are the Batman movies.

Oh, it's grand to have an imagination.

And because there is a very clever line from Alfred to let us know how that Bruce has been "gone for 7 years". Seven years. All those years, before and after being trained by the League, were years of preparation.

But...I know they SAID it but...but I didn't SEE it...I lack imagination and I didn't SEE him training hardly at all and how can I believe he's able to fight
crime???

Actually seeing him fight crime and not die once he's a vigilante is just not enough, Melkay. I must have more proof to sustain my disbelief...more proof...more...proof...

And until you have a similar training time with that 12 year-old, it won't be believable. No matter how much you try.

Can I have a copy of that "Years of training you need to have to be able to be a vigilante" chart you keep around?

- Determined adult training for seven years (before getting on the job) with some of the most skilled warriors on earth, not doing anything else but train, on the tutelage of a cold master with no respect for human life.

- A determined 12 year old training with one (very busy) man (who happens to be extremely adamant about not taking human life) and starting his job before his thirteenth birthday.

Yes, we all know Robin's not AS GOOD as the man considered the best martial artist in the DC Universe.

Oh no...he'll die for sure...

Wait...he's not? He's kicking ass and taking names?

Thank goodness.

Can I have a copy of that "Years of training you need to have to be able to be a vigilante" chart you keep around?

.......... words elude me.

No, Imagination does.

Once again...no one is advocating a version of Robin that does not show intense training for a period of time.

You just keep banging your head on the coffee table and railing against the idea that you want to see this if Robin is used. And no one's advocating against that. Not sure what that's all about.

Guard, I don't think Melkay is really questioning the vailidity of the character's role, but rather the validity of his introduction. In short (and I can actually understand this, especially in the contxt of the Nolan films), he feels that the way Bruce decides to take Dick on as a partner is a little too forced.

He's almost completely ignoring the fact that everyone here agrees there needs to be something "more" to Dick's origin than there usually is if Robin is to be used.

 

[Mindreaper21]

I can't believe this is still going on.
This thread should have burned in hell the moment it was opened. No more Robin nor Dick, he'll just complicate things. There will be too many stories going on at once and it will just make the movie soppy and all over the place. For once I wan't to see something where that pipsqueek doesn't make an appearance everytime The Riddler comes along. Bruce is a playboy with issues that need to be resolved, he's not about to baybysit some kid...someone please put this thread out of it's misery

 

[raybia]

I can't believe this is still going on.
This thread should have burned in hell the moment it was opened. No more Robin nor Dick, he'll just complicate things. There will be too many stories going on at once and it will just make the movie soppy and all over the place. For once I wan't to see something where that pipsqueek doesn't make an appearance everytime The Riddler comes along. Bruce is a playboy with issues that need to be resolved, he's not about to baybysit some kid...someone please put this thread out of it's misery

Hey! Knock it off! There is always room to discuss Dick.

 

[wellsy]

I can't believe this is still going on.
This thread should have burned in hell the moment it was opened. No more Robin nor Dick, he'll just complicate things. There will be too many stories going on at once and it will just make the movie soppy and all over the place. For once I wan't to see something where that pipsqueek doesn't make an appearance everytime The Riddler comes along. Bruce is a playboy with issues that need to be resolved, he's not about to baybysit some kid...someone please put this thread out of it's misery

This was just pathetic. You don't want Robin or Dick? Well, you've got 4 movies thus far where he's not present (the Burton and Nolan films). Not to mention Dick/Robin's introduction has nothign whatsoever to do with the Riddler's appearance (seriously, you're graqsping here).

Not to mention TDK had an ensemble cast and it worked very well, so it can most certainly be done (and it doesn't have to be by Nolan either).

Seriously, others have outlined their opposition to Robin's inclusion far more articulately and intelligently than you have. All you've shown is that you're a close-minded fool. This thread demonstrates that others are far less dismissive when it comes to Robin.

And I think that, even if he is never included, the latter is a far better place to be, than everyone being the former (like you).

 

[The Guard]

Hey! Knock it off! There is always room to discuss Dick.

Quoteworthy.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Quoteworthy.

Yeah! I love Dick! I wouldn't read comics if they didn't have Dick in them

 

[Melkay]

I knew it.

No discussion today, people, merry christmas to everybody. Especially to my atheist pals. Merry Christmas.

 

[JoseMP]

No Robin please!!!! NO NO NO NO!!

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

No Robin please!!!! NO NO NO NO!!

This young man's intelligent and well thought out debate has completely reshaped my thinking gentlemen, if only more posters could bring such arguments to the table as him.

 

[Quinzel]

I don't want to see Robin, until every other character in the DC universe has unfolded.

Including Plastic Man.

Because there have been too many gay jokes between the worlds greatest detective and the boy wonder. And they've just started to die down....around me anyway.

Batwoman, that would be interesting to see.

 

[Crook]

This is the equivalent of a comic book fan in '03 saying, "I don't want to see a Batman film ever again until every other superhero gets their movie. This genre has been a joke thanks to that character, and it's only starting to die down with Spider-Man and X-Men."

 

[Quinzel]

This is the equivalent of a comic book fan in '03 saying, "I don't want to see a Batman film ever again until every other superhero gets their movie. This genre has been a joke thanks to that character, and it's only starting to die down with Spider-Man and X-Men."

Hmm. Good point.

I like the B-man and all, bird-boys ok too, IN THE COMICS, i'm just not sure we have any younger actors that now would be able to bring all the different aspects (without the old not cartoon cartoonish-ness) to Robin, without screwin it up.

 

[Alex Logan]

They could make a Teen Titans movie with Robin, but leave him out of the Nolan films.

 

[El Payaso]

They could make a Teen Titans movie with Robin, but leave him out of the Nolan films.

 

[StylishHokie21]

This young man's intelligent and well thought out debate has completely reshaped my thinking gentlemen, if only more posters could bring such arguments to the table as him.

Check out his intelligent discussions on the DB forums. You'll get a kick out of those. As far as Robin goes, I don't think this is Nolan's cup of tea.

 

[COMPO]

You know after watching Die Hard 4.0 i think thats the way Mclane and Farrell's story was brought about should be same for when Dick Grayson comes in, where Dick is just a kid Batman has to protect from the villain. Have Dick's parents killed and have the villain who killed them have corrupt cops kidnap Dick and take him to the mob kind of like in All Star B&R. Batman saves him but because he doesn't know who to trust he takes Dick to Gordon's house while he tries to stop the bad guys. Dick and Barbara become close, but the mob know were they hiding Dick so Bruce Wayne takes him in. Batman knowing the closer Dick is to him the safer he'll be.