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

[Changeling]

Oh and btw Majik, I agree with you. If that guy can find some more concrete proof from a reliable website, than he's got **** on you, otherwise..
I'm pretty sure Riddler has brown and sometimes red hair. Black hair was from when he was very first being created. His eyes vary from brown to green from what I've seen.

 

[Majik1387]

Oh and btw Majik, I agree with you. If that guy can find some more concrete proof from a reliable website, than he's got **** on you, otherwise..
I'm pretty sure Riddler has brown and sometimes red hair. Black hair was from when he was very first being created. His eyes vary from brown to green from what I've seen.

Exactly, I always remember Riddler with Brown/Red hair and brown eyes, sometimes green.


On the topic of Robin, he can work with the right direction, writing and acting, anyone who says otherwise just doesn't like the character.

 

[Changeling]

Yeah I completely agree. I was surprised when I first came here because of how many peple hate Robin

 

[Melkay]

Of course it does ...Batman becomes the role of R'as and Robin becomes the way Bruce was in Begins. His background parallels that of Bruce's so the cycle begins again.

NO way. You would be denying Bruce of much of his deserved and necessary character progression. In the Hero's Journey structure (read anything by J. Campbell) the hero goes out of his home world and fins power, and when he's back home with his newfound power he must struggle with it and all the bad consequences that powers carries. Then, when he masters them, he gets to a higher level, and the full heroic growth is complete. Nolan was following thoroughly Campbell's guidelines about the hero's journey my in Batman Begins, and also in The Dark Knight. What you propose throws that away completely. You're denying him further progression, making him go back to a previous (and undesirable) status where he's the mentor and he must take an apprentice. But this isn't Star Wars. This is not about the relationship, but about the MAIN CHARACTER. Bruce is going to find himself in the most anguished sage of his journey, where he's dealing with all his torments in conjunction: the death of his parents and his loved one, his new difficult place in society, the inminent threats on his life now he's publi enemy no. 1, etc.
He needs to keep progressing to come out victorious of this stage, and find balance where there was no balance before. His situation with Ra's in Begins was not a desirable one, and certainly not one he would like to repeat. He thought that becoming a combative symbol of fear for the criminals would provide comfort for his city and himself, and it certainly has not. The Dark Knight was all about the consequences of his newly acquired power he did not foresee. Now he is at a new low, and he must try to get out of it by finding a balance... a balance between the persona of Batman and an emulation of the philantropic way of his father Thomas. He must get the best of his mentors, the dark one (Ra's) and the good one (Thomas Wayne).... but never become either of them, because the time was not good when one of them prevailed.

Like I said, this is the story about the formation of Bruce as a character... not the perpetuation of a kickass vigilante persona.

Bruce must never become Ra's. Ra's view about the world was too radical, and ultimately wrong. Besides, he was not Ra's apprentice, but his a puppet, like the padawans of the sith lords. A puppet that needed to be trained to be more useful... like being in a priviledged status to destroy Gotham. And Bruce must not become that.
And Robin must not become the younger Bruce, because he would find a brief peace through his channeling of his rage, through his vigilantism... but that would eventually have bad consequences for he and the City. And that's a problem that not even his mentor has figured out.

Bruce's journey must be complete before he can recruit a younger side-kick. He must become the master of himself before becoming the master of others. The story must keep going on, or it would be arriving to the middle and then going back to the beginning, like what you propose here.

 

[Melkay]

On the topic of Robin, he can work with the right direction, writing and acting, anyone who says otherwise just doesn't like the character.

What is the "right direction and writing"? Those are big words. How does that look like? How does that reflect on the script? Can that validate anything we want in the screen?

I remember a joke by Roger Ebert: what if Batman, in any given moment, slipped in a pool of water in his cave, fell back, smashed his head and died? The most arbitrary thing, just a last shot of Batman lying ded in puddle of water, blood coming from his head, and the moon light over him.

That could work, right? With the proper writing, acting and direction.


We need to understand that, when it comes to having Robin in, the proper writing may mean a heavy rewriting. For the time being, Nolan seems to have chosen to keep the Boy Wonder out of the story. And I ain't complaining.

 

[Alex Logan]

PLEASE READ

If Robin were introduced in the next film- which I feel he should be- it should be Dick Grayson.

Thematically, Grayson would fit. The theme of this film is going to be redemption and that Batman is not alone in his fight for Gotham's salvation and that it is not solely his burden to bare.

It's also about second chances. Batman is looking for a second chance at hope for the people of Gotham after the lose of Harvey Dent. If Bruce encountered a young man who is lost much in the same way he was (orphaned, alone) he would also have a second chance to save that young boy who's parents died in the alley all those years ago.

Also- he will see the potential that this boy would have if not properly looked after. He would see that there is a need to channel and harness that rage. It would be a second chance to save someone who has lost everything- much in the way he couldn't save Harvey.

Tim Drake is a great character- but the origin of a father and step mother who live in the suburbs and have a genius boy who deduces Batman's identity may not work as well thematically, as a mirror image of Bruce and a shot at redemption on a personal level for the Caped Crusader.

I vote to have Dick Grayson in the next flick.

Black Mask and/or Cobblepot should be the heads of the mob with Boss Tony Zucco as the last game in town for the "traditional" criminals. He uses the circus to smuggle guns, and in a deal gone wrong- the fair grounds fall into the cross fires of the two or three mob's war. John and Mary Grayson are among the innocent lives lost. Batman is present trying to stop the war and is able to save the boy- but not his parents.

Compounding the danger- a top level FBI detective has been brought in to discover the true identity of the Batman, Edward Nashton. After Nashton arrives in Gotham, cops start turning up dead. With each murder, there is a clue pointing towards Batman as the culprit. But, upon closer examination of the clues- there are hints just for the Batman. Hints challenging him to discover who the real cop killer is- AND revealing that who ever is behind these crimes knows the truth about what happened to Harvey Dent that night at 250 52nd Street.

I would want only Dick Grayson to appear, with the end of the movie showing Bruce choosing to train him. No costume- but ending the trilogy in a way that shows that Bruce is no longer alone in his crusade.

-R

On one hand we have your idea about compounding the danger, which I really like. Are you saying that Nashton would be the killer? Or is he just leaving the clues and some else is the killer? Black Mask?

On the other hand we have your campaign for Robin, which is fine becuase you love the character, I for one think it's way too soon for a sidekick to even be introduced. I want the story to focus on Batman and a some new rogues.

 

[REDophile]

Who knows if Nolan would still be up for Batman after the third film. But if anything, the only mention of Robin should be a teaser like they did with the Joker to end BB. At the end of BB3, Alfred could mention something to Bruce about the circus coming to town with the Flying Graysons. In which case Bruce says he might go to the show. I can picture Caine and Bale in some scene like that. But there are more important characters, themes and ideas to think about for the third film than Robin.

 

[Tonicky]

a teaser of Robin would be cool but he wouldn't fit in a Nolan film.

 

[wellsy]

NO way. You would be denying Bruce of much of his deserved and necessary character progression. In the Hero's Journey structure (read anything by J. Campbell) the hero goes out of his home world and fins power, and when he's back home with his newfound power he must struggle with it and all the bad consequences that powers carries. Then, when he masters them, he gets to a higher level, and the full heroic growth is complete. Nolan was following thoroughly Campbell's guidelines about the hero's journey my in Batman Begins, and also in The Dark Knight. What you propose throws that away completely. You're denying him further progression, making him go back to a previous (and undesirable) status where he's the mentor and he must take an apprentice. But this isn't Star Wars. This is not about the relationship, but about the MAIN CHARACTER. Bruce is going to find himself in the most anguished sage of his journey, where he's dealing with all his torments in conjunction: the death of his parents and his loved one, his new difficult place in society, the inminent threats on his life now he's publi enemy no. 1, etc.
He needs to keep progressing to come out victorious of this stage, and find balance where there was no balance before. His situation with Ra's in Begins was not a desirable one, and certainly not one he would like to repeat. He thought that becoming a combative symbol of fear for the criminals would provide comfort for his city and himself, and it certainly has not. The Dark Knight was all about the consequences of his newly acquired power he did not foresee. Now he is at a new low, and he must try to get out of it by finding a balance... a balance between the persona of Batman and an emulation of the philantropic way of his father Thomas. He must get the best of his mentors, the dark one (Ra's) and the good one (Thomas Wayne).... but never become either of them, because the time was not good when one of them prevailed.

Like I said, this is the story about the formation of Bruce as a character... not the perpetuation of a kickass vigilante persona.

Bruce must never become Ra's. Ra's view about the world was too radical, and ultimately wrong. Besides, he was not Ra's apprentice, but his a puppet, like the padawans of the sith lords. A puppet that needed to be trained to be more useful... like being in a priviledged status to destroy Gotham. And Bruce must not become that.
And Robin must not become the younger Bruce, because he would find a brief peace through his channeling of his rage, through his vigilantism... but that would eventually have bad consequences for he and the City. And that's a problem that not even his mentor has figured out.

Bruce's journey must be complete before he can recruit a younger side-kick. He must become the master of himself before becoming the master of others. The story must keep going on, or it would be arriving to the middle and then going back to the beginning, like what you propose here.

What is the "right direction and writing"? Those are big words. How does that look like? How does that reflect on the script? Can that validate anything we want in the screen?

I remember a joke by Roger Ebert: what if Batman, in any given moment, slipped in a pool of water in his cave, fell back, smashed his head and died? The most arbitrary thing, just a last shot of Batman lying ded in puddle of water, blood coming from his head, and the moon light over him.

That could work, right? With the proper writing, acting and direction.


We need to understand that, when it comes to having Robin in, the proper writing may mean a heavy rewriting. For the time being, Nolan seems to have chosen to keep the Boy Wonder out of the story. And I ain't complaining.

While I am impressed at your arguments here, there are several flaws that require an examination.

First, you claim that Bruce being Ra's to Dick's Bruce is somehow a character regression. I don't ever seem to recall Bruce being the teacher. He was the student. The student becoming the teacher is a very common theme in many stories, so I really can't see any opposition to this story line. In fact, your very argument seems to support this progression.

Second, while Bruce can never be his father, and has no wish to be Ra's, both mentored him. He owes his abilities, his knowledge, his position, his morals, to both of them. What's to say he can't take the best of both worlds? Is it that hard to find a balance between the pure, optimistic philanthropy of Thomas Wayne and the methods of the League of Shadows to teach someone? I should find a negative answer most difficult to believe.

Third, I think you're taking several arguments too literally. Bruce "becoming" Ra's is merely an analogy to the situation of Bruce and Ra's in Batman Begins, when Ducard trains Bruce. It is the training part of the analogy that is used. Bruce would never become Ra's in terms of his morals. That is one thing we don't wish to see. But, to Dick, Bruce can become as Ducard was to Bruce. That is what we want to see.

And fourth, right direction and writing is very simply the delivery of the story. Roger Ebert's joke, while certainly valid, would be extremely difficult to pull off (due to it's supremely anti-climactic nature). Putting that aside, it is a rule of thumb when it comes to literature that a well written book will sell, even if it's concept is extremely poor. A concept does not make something sell. It is the delivery of said concept, of said story. That is what is meant by the right direction and writing - the best possible delivery of the concept of Robin, and the story of Batman finding essentially a younger version of himself, the living embodiment of the failure of his mission (to prevent his tragedy from occuring to anyone else, ever again), and having to deal with said consequences. Even from that perspective (getting back into my first counter-point), it looks to me like a very powerful and compelling one. But even if we went back to the idea of Bruce becoming a teacher, having someone to pull him back from the brink, to prevent him from truly becoming another Ra's, then that concept is, in my opinion, quite a good one.

Robin has only failed in previous live-action versions due to poor directing and sloppy writing. If handled well, this story would be extremely compelling.

 

[Melkay]

While I am impressed at your arguments here, there are several flaws that require an examination.

Thank you, let's get to it...

First, you claim that Bruce being Ra's to Dick's Bruce is somehow a character regression. I don't ever seem to recall Bruce being the teacher. He was the student. The student becoming the teacher is a very common theme in many stories, so I really can't see any opposition to this story line. In fact, your very argument seems to support this progression.

I do think it is Bruce's destiny to become a teacher, as the legacy storyline is one of the main aspects of the mythos, BUT I have two problems with it:
1. most of the mentor-apprentice storylines give the focus to the apprentice, making him more of the main character, since he's the one who has to pass through test and overcome obstacles. I do know that with "the proper writing" this can be avoided but I think the only thing that can accomplish, at the most, is making Bruce a co-protagonist with Robin. And that would harm the formers progression, which leads me to...
2. to become a mentor when you're not prepared and it is uncalled for it IS a regression. I strongly believe, based on what we have seen that Nolan's Batman has still to become his own master before becoming someone else's. It is a very delicate and important stage of the hero's journey and to become a mentor before his arrival to a new, more definitive balance would hinder his development and worst, take time away from his personal story. Bruce has too many major conflicts now to become a teacher, and while that can change along the line that simply is not the case. When it is the case, the writers take the risk of taking the focus from Batman and back into the new main character, and that simply is not the way to go for the next sequel, considering how little focus Bruce had compared to other characters in TDK.

Second, while Bruce can never be his father, and has no wish to be Ra's, both mentored him. He owes his abilities, his knowledge, his position, his morals, to both of them. What's to say he can't take the best of both worlds? Is it that hard to find a balance between the pure, optimistic philanthropy of Thomas Wayne and the methods of the League of Shadows to teach someone? I should find a negative answer most difficult to believe.

I completely agree he can find that balance. What I disagree is that he has already found it. And to share that important last stage (the part where he achieves that balance) with a premature mentor-apprentice story is not wise. It would feel utterly rushed. I don't have a problem with a Robin that is accepted by Bruce AFTER he gets to that balance and receives from him PROPER training... 5 or 6 years, until he's an adult.

Third, I think you're taking several arguments too literally. Bruce "becoming" Ra's is merely an analogy to the situation of Bruce and Ra's in Batman Begins, when Ducard trains Bruce.

I know, and I was pointing out at the flaws in the analogy, not because I think people don't know them, but because it allowed me to talk about the balance between Bruce's two mentor figures. At this point, Bruce sees himself too much like Ra's and too little as Thomas Wayne, probably believing the path he has chosen makes him not worthy of being Gotham's saviour. In TDK, in his eyes, Harvey was much more like Thomas Wayne than he was. And he needs to find that healthy balance between an altruistic beacon and a punisher of the bad guys. He's just no there yet.

It is the training part of the analogy that is used. Bruce would never become Ra's in terms of his morals. That is one thing we don't wish to see. But, to Dick, Bruce can become as Ducard was to Bruce. That is what we want to see.

I'm one of those who think that even Ducard was channeling too much of his own rage to Bruce. "Your parent's death was not your fault; it was your father's"... that sent shivers down my spine. And he was the one who wanted Bruce to execute a harmless peasant. Not even when he was posing as Ducard he was balanced. And neither was Thomas Wayne, whose last words were: "don't be afraid". (don't be afraid?? is that supposed to work on that little boy? he is rightfully scared!).

Bruce had not a truly good mentor in his moment. Ra's was overconfident, and was defeated because of that. Bruce became overconfident of his own methods, and had huge setbacks in TDK. Neither one of his mentors had a truly great understanding of the world. Enter Robin, and he's about to pass out some of those mistakes into an aimless teenager. No, that's not right. You don't have children when you're not prepared to do. We will be more prepared to embrace that aspect of the story AFTER Batman reaches a higher, more stable level. But that moment isn't here right now.

And fourth, right direction and writing is very simply the delivery of the story. Roger Ebert's joke, while certainly valid, would be extremely difficult to pull off (due to it's supremely anti-climactic nature).

Which is the same thing I say about Robin. It's not as hard as the puddle of water thing, but it is very difficult to conceive. Especially now, when it would be premature, IMO.

Putting that aside, it is a rule of thumb when it comes to literature that a well written book will sell, even if it's concept is extremely poor.

No, my friend, I beg to differ. The concept IS part of the "good writing". Content is as much part of good storytelling as style. Just using a good language or a good rythim for the Robin storyline doesn't mean it will be "good writing". I don't know if that's what you meant, but it certainly seemed that.

A concept does not make something sell. It is the delivery of said concept, of said story.

I could not disagree more here. I believe you are so utterly wrong here that any counter-argument from my part would be insufficient.

That is what is meant by the right direction and writing - the best possible delivery of the concept of Robin, and the story of Batman finding essentially a younger version of himself, the living embodiment of the failure of his mission (to prevent his tragedy from occurring to anyone else, ever again), and having to deal with said consequences.

How a putting that boy in a similar path to his is a prevention of his own tragedy from reappearing? The line of thought eludes me.

Even from that perspective (getting back into my first counter-point), it looks to me like a very powerful and compelling one. But even if we went back to the idea of Bruce becoming a teacher, having someone to pull him back from the brink, to prevent him from truly becoming another Ra's, then that concept is, in my opinion, quite a good one.

That is something I didn't expect from you... weren't you the one who believed that Bruce was in no risk of becoming another Ra's? I shared that opinion. What made you change your mind? If that's the purpose you see in Robin, but the risk is not there, then Robin is useless to you.

Robin has only failed in previous live-action versions due to poor directing and sloppy writing.

That, I'm sorry, it's arguable at this point. Until we see a good Robin story come to life, it's just speculation.

 

[wellsy]

Thank you, let's get to it...



I do think it is Bruce's destiny to become a teacher, as the legacy storyline is one of the main aspects of the mythos, BUT I have two problems with it:
1. most of the mentor-apprentice storylines give the focus to the apprentice, making him more of the main character, since he's the one who has to pass through test and overcome obstacles. I do know that with "the proper writing" this can be avoided but I think the only thing that can accomplish, at the most, is making Bruce a co-protagonist with Robin. And that would harm the formers progression, which leads me to...
2. to become a mentor when you're not prepared and it is uncalled for it IS a regression. I strongly believe, based on what we have seen that Nolan's Batman has still to become his own master before becoming someone else's. It is a very delicate and important stage of the hero's journey and to become a mentor before his arrival to a new, more definitive balance would hinder his development and worst, take time away from his personal story. Bruce has too many major conflicts now to become a teacher, and while that can change along the line that simply is not the case. When it is the case, the writers take the risk of taking the focus from Batman and back into the new main character, and that simply is not the way to go for the next sequel, considering how little focus Bruce had compared to other characters in TDK.[1]



I completely agree he can find that balance. What I disagree is that he has already found it. And to share that important last stage (the part where he achieves that balance) with a premature mentor-apprentice story is not wise. It would feel utterly rushed. I don't have a problem with a Robin that is accepted by Bruce AFTER he gets to that balance and receives from him PROPER training... 5 or 6 years, until he's an adult.[2]



I know, and I was pointing out at the flaws in the analogy, not because I think people don't know them, but because it allowed me to talk about the balance between Bruce's two mentor figures. At this point, Bruce sees himself too much like Ra's and too little as Thomas Wayne, probably believing the path he has chosen makes him not worthy of being Gotham's saviour. In TDK, in his eyes, Harvey was much more like Thomas Wayne than he was. And he needs to find that healthy balance between an altruistic beacon and a punisher of the bad guys. He's just no there yet. [3]



I'm one of those who think that even Ducard was channeling too much of his own rage to Bruce. "Your parent's death was not your fault; it was your father's"... that sent shivers down my spine. And he was the one who wanted Bruce to execute a harmless peasant. Not even when he was posing as Ducard he was balanced. And neither was Thomas Wayne, whose last words were: "don't be afraid". (don't be afraid?? is that supposed to work on that little boy? he is rightfully scared!).

Bruce had not a truly good mentor in his moment. Ra's was overconfident, and was defeated because of that. Bruce became overconfident of his own methods, and had huge setbacks in TDK. Neither one of his mentors had a truly great understanding of the world. Enter Robin, and he's about to pass out some of those mistakes into an aimless teenager. No, that's not right. You don't have children when you're not prepared to do. We will be more prepared to embrace that aspect of the story AFTER Batman reaches a higher, more stable level. But that moment isn't here right now. [4]



Which is the same thing I say about Robin. It's not as hard as the puddle of water thing, but it is very difficult to conceive. Especially now, when it would be premature, IMO.



No, my friend, I beg to differ. The concept IS part of the "good writing". Content is as much part of good storytelling as style. Just using a good language or a good rythim for the Robin storyline doesn't mean it will be "good writing". I don't know if that's what you meant, but it certainly seemed that. [5]



I could not disagree more here. I believe you are so utterly wrong here that any counter-argument from my part would be insufficient.



How a putting that boy in a similar path to his is a prevention of his own tragedy from reappearing? The line of thought eludes me. [6]



That is something I didn't expect from you... weren't you the one who believed that Bruce was in no risk of becoming another Ra's? I shared that opinion. What made you change your mind? If that's the purpose you see in Robin, but the risk is not there, then Robin is useless to you. [7]



That, I'm sorry, it's arguable at this point. Until we see a good Robin story come to life, it's just speculation.

[1] - Bruce isn't ready to be a teacher. This, I concede. But TDK shows that he also wasn't ready to be the hero of Gotham. He made his mistakes, and they cost him. He wasn't prepared for the effects it would have on him, and on Harvey.

In short, I assert that he cannot be prepared. Therein lies a part of the drama that could be harnessed in the script.

However, I can understand your point about not wanting to detract from Bruce's arc, and I fully support such a position. Therefore, while you may be right in that many movies are made from the apprentice's point of view, why not the teacher's? See The Emperor's Club for an example of this very thing.

[2] - I never said he had found a balance. But who's to say that Robin/Dick can't help him find it? Things in life aren't nice and wait until we're ready. Often, things just happen, and it's up to us to make what we can of the situation.

[3] - Like I just said, who's to say that Dick/Robin wouldn't help him find that balance? The character of Robin's natural lightness plays a critical counter-balance to Bruce's darkness. How do you think Ducard/Ra's wound up the way he did? He had no counter-balance to his darkness, and gave in.

[4] - OK, Thomas Wayne and Ra's on their own are poor mentors when it comes to taking their teachings and applying it to the world. But try combining both teachings, in addition to what Bruce has learnt about the criminal class. While the balance of the influence of the three competing positions has yet to be achieved, I find it difficult to believe that just because the lessons Bruce have learnt are, while on their own useless, mutually exclusive with any other philosophy. (Oh, and that peasant was a murderer, and probably wound up dead anyway when Ra's retreat got blown up).

And what you stated yourself is the very essence of the Batman/Robin relationship - how can Batman teach this boy how to fight crime when not even he knows everything. Bruce's fears of repeating the mistakes of the past form a critical part of the relationship, and thus, shouldn't be left out.

[5] - I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. Anything told well, with intriguing characters, interesting dialogue, and in a rich and well-realised world, can work. A strong concept certainly lends itself to that, but a weaker one can also be made to work. Consider, for example, the Shakugan no Shana light novels. I found out about them after watching the anime series they were adapted into (and I think quite highly of the series). But the novels were amongst the most atrocious pieces of fiction I have ever read. The concept was - what would you do if you found out you were already dead (and I highly recommend the anime series), but the two books that were translated (which would have had a bit to do with its quality) were utterly atrocious.

That highlights the importance of delivery - a strong concept delivered poorly makes for a weaker story, while the reverse can be a stronger story. It doesn't always work, but it can.

[6] - I think more it is Bruce realising that Dick has chosen that life. I never intended to say that Bruce would train Dick simply because Dick's tragedy mirrors Bruce's, since that is a disservice to Dick's character. I think we can both agree that Bruce wouldn't train Dick, unless Dick proved that he was going to help Batman, with or without his permission. Dick's training is there to prevent him from getting killed, to prevent that tragedy. It's not something Bruce goes out of his way to do. It's something he has to do, much like he has to be Batman.

[7] - Actually, no. In light of the events of TDK, I think Batman, whose reputation now has him as a murderer, in addition to grieving over Rachel and his failure with Harvey, would certainly be tending towards an ever more extreme path. That is why I feel this is a good time for Dick/Robin to come in, to arrest the decline into amorality. In fact, my very introduction of Dick as I would imagine a third movie pretty much includes this part and parcel, that Dick would stop Bruce from becoming like Harvey (in that analogy), and like Ra's.

 

[terry78]

All I'm hearing from detractors is that Robin would make a dark mood lighter. If every single ****ing writer has been able to include Robin and maintain the noir-ish style of Gotham City, Nolan should be able to as well. That's basically saying he ain't got the skills to do it, but all these other mother****ers did.

 

[RockyBatboa]

No Robin

 

[RockyBatboa]

All I'm hearing from detractors is that Robin would make a dark mood lighter. If every single ****ing writer has been able to include Robin and maintain the noir-ish style of Gotham City, Nolan should be able to as well. That's basically saying he ain't got the skills to do it, but all these other mother****ers did.

Love your Greg Kinnear quote though.

 

[Alex Logan]

All I'm hearing from detractors is that Robin would make a dark mood lighter. If every single ****ing writer has been able to include Robin and maintain the noir-ish style of Gotham City, Nolan should be able to as well. That's basically saying he ain't got the skills to do it, but all these other mother****ers did.

Are you talking about comics or film? What works in comics doesn't always work on film.

 

[Melkay]

All I'm hearing from detractors is that Robin would make a dark mood lighter. If every single ****ing writer has been able to include Robin and maintain the noir-ish style of Gotham City, Nolan should be able to as well.

This is a false statement.

 

[Melkay]

I can understand your point about not wanting to detract from Bruce's arc, and I fully support such a position. Therefore, while you may be right in that many movies are made from the apprentice's point of view, why not the teacher's? See The Emperor's Club for an example of this very thing.

Again, it's not only a thematic problem, but also a diegetic (realistic) problem. Bruce has too much gonig on for him to become the mentor of a troubled child.

[2] - I never said he had found a balance. But who's to say that Robin/Dick can't help him find it? Things in life aren't nice and wait until we're ready. Often, things just happen, and it's up to us to make what we can of the situation.

Fiction is not real life. Simple as that. In real life Dick would bring tons of practical problems and inconveniences to Bruce's fight. In fiction the drama has to be more thamtically sound, and if Bruce's quest is about defining himself and reaching a stable place in Gotham (an arguable point, I know) then entering a mentor storyline is leaving a quest and deviating in another. TDK was a completely logical step from the events of Begins, becoming a juxtaposition for all of them. But I'm afraid that is not the case with a Robin storyline.

[3] - Like I just said, who's to say that Dick/Robin wouldn't help him find that balance? The character of Robin's natural lightness plays a critical counter-balance to Bruce's darkness. How do you think Ducard/Ra's wound up the way he did? He had no counter-balance to his darkness, and gave in.

Robin is also a can of worms... it's not only about against Bruce's character to endanger unskilled minors, but he wouldn't want to put him through something similar to the path he chose. Without the proper training (the 6 year training idea) this would be a boy totally distracting Batman in the battlefield, and not having enough skills to preserve his own life and the life of criminals and innocent bystanders alike. Not to mention that Batman is meant to strike terror in the hearts of criminals, which is one of the reasons he took the fall for Dent's death... why would he pair up with an adolescent side-kick? Is that supposed to be a symbol of terror? No. He would lose impact and credibility in the eyes of Gotham's underworld, and that's the last thing he wants.

[4] - OK, Thomas Wayne and Ra's on their own are poor mentors when it comes to taking their teachings and applying it to the world. But try combining both teachings, in addition to what Bruce has learnt about the criminal class.

I agree that's the way to go, I just don't think he has gotten there yet. For example, I won't ever believe he has learnt enough about the "criminal class" before the appearance of Catwoman, for example.

While the balance of the influence of the three competing positions has yet to be achieved, I find it difficult to believe that just because the lessons Bruce have learnt are, while on their own useless, mutually exclusive with any other philosophy.

I don't get your point here. To what philosophy are you referring?

(Oh, and that peasant was a murderer, and probably wound up dead anyway when Ra's retreat got blown up).

I know. Bruce seemed quite unstable at the time. At least the knew that he wasn't prepared to execute criminals... not even murderers. That's what he was going to do to chill, but never again.

And what you stated yourself is the very essence of the Batman/Robin relationship - how can Batman teach this boy how to fight crime when not even he knows everything. Bruce's fears of repeating the mistakes of the past form a critical part of the relationship, and thus, shouldn't be left out.

There's a difference between being ready and not believing it, and not being ready at all. I hope you understand.

[5] - I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. Anything told well, with intriguing characters, interesting dialogue, and in a rich and well-realised world, can work.

Not necessarily. Story, narrative devices, plot, thematic resonance, all those are things I would put before something more stylistic like say, dialogue.

A strong concept certainly lends itself to that, but a weaker one can also be made to work. Consider, for example, the Shakugan no Shana light novels. I found out about them after watching the anime series they were adapted into (and I think quite highly of the series). But the novels were amongst the most atrocious pieces of fiction I have ever read. The concept was - what would you do if you found out you were already dead (and I highly recommend the anime series), but the two books that were translated (which would have had a bit to do with its quality) were utterly atrocious.

And I'm not denying the need for a consistent and decent style, I just take it for granted. It's much easier to "write well" than to come up with the things I mentioned above. That's why Nolan hasn't committed to the sequel yet. He has mastered style, and is trying to find content now, to put it simply.

I think we can both agree that Bruce wouldn't train Dick, unless Dick proved that he was going to help Batman, with or without his permission.

With or without his permission? A 12 year old? Isn't Batman the guy who puts criminals in control and takes care of dangerous, deranged super-villains? Hmm, what a paradox. Sorry, but I can't see a way to do that in a realistic way in live action.

[7] - Batman (...) would certainly be tending towards an ever more extreme path. That is why I feel this is a good time for Dick/Robin to come in, to arrest the decline into amorality.

I disagree. There are alternative characters available for the same purpose, to not let him get swallowed by the shadows of his life.. i.e. Alfred and Catwoman. Since others can do his job without going through so much trouble, I would leave Robin behind for the moment.... (a LONG moment).

 

[El Payaso]

El Payaso, I just had to say your avvy is .

Oh, absolutely.

Thanks.

So pretty much get rid of everything that makes Robin unique and a great character?

That is what has made Robin work in comics in the recent years. Less red and yellow, less pantyhose, less elf shoes, more black.

But considering that it's too much to changhe the healthiest decision would be no Robin.

Seriously, dark does not equal better,

In the Batman world it is exactly like that. Darker IS better. For Batman, for Joker, for Gordon, for HarveyD Dent/Two-Face, for everything. The darker the better when we're talking about Batman. Specially in movies.

the entire point of Robin is that he brings Batman back form the brink and helps him to to have hope again.

He stabilizes Batman? More reason against Robin.

I don't want two dark brooding allies, that's just be boring.

That's why they're sticking to the original one only.

Also, I've never got why everyone hates Robin considering he's the superhero you'd actually be. Yes I get it you wanted to be Batman as a kid but no one truly wants Batman's life nor his modus operandi. He has no time for fun, while really, if I was a superhero I'd definitely taunt my enemies or have a life outside of "the war". He has a good sense of humour, his more lightheartedness serves a good point, so why destroy that for making him a 16-20 year old grim vigilante that everyone wants?

Because he's a better character.

But if I wanted to be a superherop, Robin is the last in my list. No, he wouldn't even be there.

I'd be Superman, superpowers and all. Only using them for my own benefit.

You either do Robin or you don't, no trying to meet in the middle by changing the core of these characters.

I agree. No Robin.

Exactly, I always remember Riddler with Brown/Red hair and brown eyes, sometimes green.


On the topic of Robin, he can work with the right direction, writing and acting, anyone who says otherwise just doesn't like the character.

This is a false statement.

Lol. True.

 

[wellsy]

Again, it's not only a thematic problem, but also a diegetic (realistic) problem. Bruce has too much gonig on for him to become the mentor of a troubled child. [1]

Fiction is not real life. Simple as that. In real life Dick would bring tons of practical problems and inconveniences to Bruce's fight. In fiction the drama has to be more thamtically sound, and if Bruce's quest is about defining himself and reaching a stable place in Gotham (an arguable point, I know) then entering a mentor storyline is leaving a quest and deviating in another. TDK was a completely logical step from the events of Begins, becoming a juxtaposition for all of them. But I'm afraid that is not the case with a Robin storyline. [2]

Robin is also a can of worms... it's not only about against Bruce's character to endanger unskilled minors, but he wouldn't want to put him through something similar to the path he chose. Without the proper training (the 6 year training idea) this would be a boy totally distracting Batman in the battlefield, and not having enough skills to preserve his own life and the life of criminals and innocent bystanders alike. Not to mention that Batman is meant to strike terror in the hearts of criminals, which is one of the reasons he took the fall for Dent's death... why would he pair up with an adolescent side-kick? Is that supposed to be a symbol of terror? No. He would lose impact and credibility in the eyes of Gotham's underworld, and that's the last thing he wants. [3]

I agree that's the way to go, I just don't think he has gotten there yet. For example, I won't ever believe he has learnt enough about the "criminal class" before the appearance of Catwoman, for example.

I don't get your point here. To what philosophy are you referring? [4]

I know. Bruce seemed quite unstable at the time. At least the knew that he wasn't prepared to execute criminals... not even murderers. That's what he was going to do to chill, but never again.

There's a difference between being ready and not believing it, and not being ready at all. I hope you understand. [5]

Not necessarily. Story, narrative devices, plot, thematic resonance, all those are things I would put before something more stylistic like say, dialogue. [6]

And I'm not denying the need for a consistent and decent style, I just take it for granted. It's much easier to "write well" than to come up with the things I mentioned above. That's why Nolan hasn't committed to the sequel yet. He has mastered style, and is trying to find content now, to put it simply. [7]

With or without his permission? A 12 year old? Isn't Batman the guy who puts criminals in control and takes care of dangerous, deranged super-villains? Hmm, what a paradox. Sorry, but I can't see a way to do that in a realistic way in live action. [8]

I disagree. There are alternative characters available for the same purpose, to not let him get swallowed by the shadows of his life.. i.e. Alfred and Catwoman. Since others can do his job without going through so much trouble, I would leave Robin behind for the moment.... (a LONG moment). [9]

[1] - Point is certainly arguable. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[2] - While you're certainly right in that fiction is not reality, reality is often reflected in fiction. I think we're not seeing eye to eye because I feel that Robin/Dick is one way in which to help Bruce achieve that balance and self-definition. Really, I think we're just not on the same page with this one, so again, an agreeable disagreement here.

[3] - You know, you're absolutely right. Bruce wouldn't want to train Dick. He'd want him safe. All the time. Only, Dick doesn't want that. His being an acrobat means he does have some nifty tricks for getting around (though helping him fight is another thing entirely). Thus, he doesn't stay safe. Bruce eventually, reluctantly, agree to train him, reasoning that if the little bugger won't stay put, then he's best off at least knowing how to survive. It should never be done willingly by Bruce. It's a path of last resort.

[4] - I'm referring to the philosophies of Thomas Wayne and Ra's al Ghul. Both have noble ends, but the means by which they achieve them are radically different. What I'm saying is that their philosophies, while opposed at a glance (the Machiavellian League of Shadows, and the philanthropic Thomas Wayne), can be combined, so long as some limits are observed (eg, not killing). That's what I'm referring to.

[5] - Indeed I do. I have issues much like that myself (a byproduct of being at the bottom of the primary school pecking order. High school was much better)). I think this point is one we again just don't see the same way.

[6] - Narrative devices, thematic resonance, plot, are all part of the delivery. But a concept, essentially, what appears on the blurb, can still be enough to make someone who's read it go "no, seriously". Think something like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Having seen the theatrical cut, I thought it was terribly boring and badly paced, but a lot of science fiction is like that in terms of concept (and is hailed for it).

Hell, for another example, see Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Whether you like it or not, it is essentially a story about an invasion of ghosts. But it worked for me. That's what I mean when I say concept and delivery are two different things, and delivery is what's important (hell, it certainly helps to deliver pizzas with a smile - I get good tips, y'know).

[7] - Oh, of course, and I respect Nolan for doing that. When you're spending $170 million on something, of course you'd want everything to be as strong as possible. Books, however, are generally written on an author's initiative, and that was more what I'm talking about (although some movies certainly do try - see ST:TMP and FF:TSW above).

[8] - I don't think any of us are arguing that a 12-year-old should take on the Joker or Two-Face (just as general examples). Virtually everyone here agrees that Robin shouldn't take to the field any younger than about 15-16. However, that means he starts training when he's about 12 or so. What I'm saying is he goes out to try and do some vigilante work, it backfires, Bat saves him, rinse and repeat a few times to drive home the message. Dick has spunk. He has attitude. And like bloody hell is he taking "no" for an answer when it comes to joining Batman. That's the character.

Certainly, I agree, a 12-year-old wouldn't be able to take down the big bruisers. Robin could be deployed in a messenger role (I posted an outline of this several pages back). In short, he ferries messages and information between Batman and Gordon. He doesn't fight. He scouts, he runs the messages, he does things like what Bruce did in BB where he posed as a bum in order to get some info. That's Robin starting out (on-the-job training, in a sense). These things aren't super-dangerous, and could quite easily be a good way to put Dick to use. He could also act as an Oracle-esque character, staying in the Batcave.

Essentially, there are plenty of possible ways they could use the character, and not have him beating up thugs when he's twelve. Of course, he'd have to know how to get out of a sticky situation before he gets to go out in the field in any form whatsoever.

[9] - Perhaps. But then, isn't that why this thread exists and has gone to 75+ pages?

 

[Melkay]

[1] - Point is certainly arguable. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[2] - While you're certainly right in that fiction is not reality, reality is often reflected in fiction. I think we're not seeing eye to eye because I feel that Robin/Dick is one way in which to help Bruce achieve that balance and self-definition. Really, I think we're just not on the same page with this one, so again, an agreeable disagreement here.

[5] - Indeed I do. I have issues much like that myself (a byproduct of being at the bottom of the primary school pecking order. High school was much better)). I think this point is one we again just don't see the same way.

[7] - Oh, of course, and I respect Nolan for doing that. When you're spending $170 million on something, of course you'd want everything to be as strong as possible. Books, however, are generally written on an author's initiative, and that was more what I'm talking about (although some movies certainly do try - see ST:TMP and FF:TSW above).

Completely agreed with all of this.

[3] - You know, you're absolutely right. Bruce wouldn't want to train Dick. He'd want him safe. All the time. Only, Dick doesn't want that. His being an acrobat means he does have some nifty tricks for getting around (though helping him fight is another thing entirely). Thus, he doesn't stay safe. Bruce eventually, reluctantly, agree to train him, reasoning that if the little bugger won't stay put, then he's best off at least knowing how to survive. It should never be done willingly by Bruce. It's a path of last resort.

I believe Bruce would be stubborn enough to not let a few boy's antics to change his posture. To train this out of control kid would be to accept that every troubled kid out there should be trained too, so why not open an academy and foster home for talented youngsters? No, I don't buy it.
Bruce has been able to do even more impressive feats and has to deal with lots of obstacles in his crime-fighting, always preserving the lives of everyone involved, including his enemies... but a little boy makes him reluctantly agree to train him just because he's risking his life? I don't buy it.
There are far better more efficients resorts for giving balance to a 12 year old with thirst of vengeance than training him how to fight and letting him go into battle with dangerous criminals. I just can't buy it.

So let's part with a disagreement here once more.

[4] - I'm referring to the philosophies of Thomas Wayne and Ra's al Ghul. Both have noble ends, but the means by which they achieve them are radically different. What I'm saying is that their philosophies, while opposed at a glance (the Machiavellian League of Shadows, and the philanthropic Thomas Wayne), can be combined, so long as some limits are observed (eg, not killing). That's what I'm referring to.

I agree, I never said the contrary. He will (hopefully) get a healthy balance between them, at least for a time. I believe Robin would be an obstacle for getting to this point, among other things. I know, of course, this is where you disagree, but I understand your position.

[6] - Narrative devices, thematic resonance, plot, are all part of the delivery. But a concept, essentially, what appears on the blurb, can still be enough to make someone who's read it go "no, seriously". Think something like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Having seen the theatrical cut, I thought it was terribly boring and badly paced, but a lot of science fiction is like that in terms of concept (and is hailed for it).

No no no, the main thematic choices and the early plot are all present in the early stages of screenwriting: the premise, the synopsis, the creation of the storyline. That's what I mean by content. Once you start writing everything else you enter into the delivery stage. Foe example, the premise of Batman accepting and underage side-kick is a concept, and possibly his reasons for it and the thematic intention too... but choice of language and rhythm, for instance, have nothing to do with that. I could give the same storyline to Goyer and to Harold Pinter and the improvements would be minimal.

Hell, for another example, see Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Whether you like it or not, it is essentially a story about an invasion of ghosts. But it worked for me. That's what I mean when I say concept and delivery are two different things, and delivery is what's important (hell, it certainly helps to deliver pizzas with a smile - I get good tips, y'know).

I like to see FF:TSW as a story about human foolishness in the power spheres and how draining a planets resources can be fatal. Delivery is greatly important in the film, but there's still something to root from. For good counter-examples, see the last Punisher movie, or Reign of Fire... spectacular deliveries... mediocre premises and content. But we can be cherrypicking from dusk til' dawn here.

[8] - I don't think any of us are arguing that a 12-year-old should take on the Joker or Two-Face (just as general examples). Virtually everyone here agrees that Robin shouldn't take to the field any younger than about 15-16.

LOL... you'd be astonished

However, that means he starts training when he's about 12 or so. What I'm saying is he goes out to try and do some vigilante work, it backfires, Bat saves him, rinse and repeat a few times to drive home the message. Dick has spunk. He has attitude. And like bloody hell is he taking "no" for an answer when it comes to joining Batman. That's the character.

COMPLETELY agreed here. I even wrote a poor attempt at an scene where Bruce tells him he's going to take him and train him for a long time.

"Bale's Batman commiserates a boy he watched him face a tragedy similar to his, and eventually adopts the kid. The kid finds out about Batman's identity and demands to help him on his missions. Bale's Batman strongly refuses and, , along with friend and therapist Leslie Tompkins, he does all kinds of things to discourage the kid from becoming a vigilante, without success. At some point this kid (name Dick, age 13), doning a home-made costume, follows Bruce and saves his life at a critical point, but gets hurt or ruins anothr part of the mission. Bale locks him up in his room for some time, and then finally walks in, a looks severely at the boy...

BALE'S BRUCE: You say you want to do what I do, and help me, but you're not ready, and all you're going to accomplish is get yourself killed. You can do things, and you think you're ready, but you're not. This is not easy. You can't do this... not right now. That's why I'm going to train you. Train you without stopping, maybe even away from here. You need to learn discipline, you need to get stronger... and only then I'll let you work with me, after you turn eighteen.

Because you're going to find that the training it's important. That the will is not everything.

(Dick looks at him)

BRUCE: Understood?

DICK: Yes.

(Bruce walks away to the door.)

DICK: Thank you.

BRUCE: Don't. Maybe one day, I will be thanking you."

Certainly, I agree, a 12-year-old wouldn't be able to take down the big bruisers. Robin could be deployed in a messenger role (I posted an outline of this several pages back). In short, he ferries messages and information between Batman and Gordon. He doesn't fight. He scouts, he runs the messages, he does things like what Bruce did in BB where he posed as a bum in order to get some info.

Oh, a boy thirsty for going into crime-fighting, complying with just being the delivery boy? Dick is insistent and creative enough to convince Bruce to let him in, no matter all the inconveniences he represents, but doesn't use those marvelous convincing skills of his to get into more of the fighting and less of the sending messages gig? And mind, scouting can be a VERY dangerous business.
I just can't buy it.

That's Robin starting out (on-the-job training, in a sense). These things aren't super-dangerous, and could quite easily be a good way to put Dick to use. He could also act as an Oracle-esque character, staying in the Batcave.

I've spoken my mind before against the on-the-job training notion, since I think it is extremely inferior to the intensive and long training Bruce underwent, before and after he was recruited by Ra's. If sometimes that long training seems to be 'just enough', with Batman's life being at great risk in many occasions, how can Robin become good enough with just on-the-job training? I know that's not what you're proposing, but it is the idea of many here. Sorry for the digression.

[9] - Perhaps. But then, isn't that why this thread exists and has gone to 75+ pages?

No, this thread exists because people begrudge Nolan for not planning to include Robin in his adaptation, and it's t5+ pages long because, no matter what the poll says, they're adamant about their position. A praiseworthy thing, clearly, but ultimately energy draining. They have their arguments too, of course, but I remain calm with the comfort of knowing that Nolan agrees with my side, at least on this point (I'd wish it was in everything, like Mr. Freeze, Catwoman or Penguin... but what can I do? ).

 

[wellsy]

Oh, a boy thirsty for going into crime-fighting, complying with just being the delivery boy? Dick is insistent and creative enough to convince Bruce to let him in, no matter all the inconveniences he represents, but doesn't use those marvelous convincing skills of his to get into more of the fighting and less of the sending messages gig? And mind, scouting can be a VERY dangerous business.
I just can't buy it. [1]

I've spoken my mind before against the on-the-job training notion, since I think it is extremely inferior to the intensive and long training Bruce underwent, before and after he was recruited by Ra's. If sometimes that long training seems to be 'just enough', with Batman's life being at great risk in many occasions, how can Robin become good enough with just on-the-job training? I know that's not what you're proposing, but it is the idea of many here. Sorry for the digression. [2]

No, this thread exists because people begrudge Nolan for not planning to include Robin in his adaptation, and it's t5+ pages long because, no matter what the poll says, they're adamant about their position. A praiseworthy thing, clearly, but ultimately energy draining. They have their arguments too, of course, but I remain calm with the comfort of knowing that Nolan agrees with my side, at least on this point (I'd wish it was in everything, like Mr. Freeze, Catwoman or Penguin... but what can I do? ). [3]

[1] - I think if he's desperate to do something, anything, he'd accept that he has to start at the bottom. He has to start as a page before he can be a squire.

[2] - It feels to me like a matter of interpretation. If we again go back to the old progression to knighthood, you started as a page, became a squire, and then were knighted yourself. Dick at the start would be a page. When he becomes Robin, he's a squire, and then, upon becoming Nightwing, he is his own knight. Of course, some lessons would have to be taught in the field, in the least dangerous situation where possible. Not to mentions pages (and probably squires) were used as messengers (the latter generally on the battlefield, the former in the manor, etc).

I think it's open to interpretation how you develop it.

Oh, and do we know how long Bruce spent with Ra's? We know he was away for 7 years, but how much time was he a petty criminal, and how long had he been in gaol? (yeah, I'm old fashioned, so sue me... actually, on second thoughts, don't bother). I bring it up because I feel it's relevant - we don't know exactly how long he spent with the League of Shadows, and so it's hard to say. It could have been 5 years, it could have been 2. Just some food for thought.

[3] - As a writer myself, I fully appreciate Nolan's position. If he doesn't want to include Robin, that's fine. It's his story, not mine. I'm just arguing that the opportunity has arisen with the closing of TDK (and we don't know if the sequel will be immediately after, a few months, a few years, or a few decades later). Whether or not he includes it is entirely up to him.

 

[Robin91939]

On one hand we have your idea about compounding the danger, which I really like. Are you saying that Nashton would be the killer? Or is he just leaving the clues and some else is the killer? Black Mask?

On the other hand we have your campaign for Robin, which is fine becuase you love the character, I for one think it's way too soon for a sidekick to even be introduced. I want the story to focus on Batman and a some new rogues.

In my head, Riddler is the killer. But it could be used to have the Riddler implicating another villain in the murders, and help his secret rise to power...I hadn't thought of that. But, in my head- Riddler is the killer.

-R

 

[Robin91939]

No offense but I don't see how that site is reliable. It's a wiki site which I'm sure means anyone can modify it. And also, I know I may not be up to date with Riddler's appearance, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't have blue eyes and black hair.
And also
That doesn't really sound like concrete proof to me.

In the DC Comics Encyclopedia it reads:

The Riddler:
Real Name: Edward Nigma (née Edward Nashton).

"Née" is a French word that means "born". It's a term that refers to the name a person was born with. Edward Nigma was BORN Edward Nashton but has since changed his name to assume the alias, Edward E. Nygma, Edward Nigma, and The Riddler.

-R

 

[Alex Logan]

In my head, Riddler is the killer. But it could be used to have the Riddler implicating another villain in the murders, and help his secret rise to power...I hadn't thought of that. But, in my head- Riddler is the killer.

-R

Interesting, I have questions. As I'm sure you know, Riddler is not a killer in the comics. Why make him the killer? What's his motivation? What are his goals? What do you mean by rise to power?

In the DC Comics Encyclopedia it reads:

The Riddler:
Real Name: Edward Nigma (née Edward Nashton).

"Née" is a French word that means "born". It's a term that refers to the name a person was born with. Edward Nigma was BORN Edward Nashton but has since changed his name to assume the alias, Edward E. Nygma, Edward Nigma, and The Riddler.

-R

This is true, you know your stuff.

 

[Robin91939]

Interesting, I have questions. As I'm sure you know, Riddler is not a killer in the comics. Why make him the killer? What's his motivation? What are his goals? What do you mean by rise to power?



This is true, you know your stuff.

Thanks for the second part, lol.

I know he's never been a killer, well not a cold blooded one, in the comics. But he has committed crimes and is so narcissistic that he can't help but to leave a clue at the seen incriminating himself (to those savvy enough to decipher it...usually only the Batman can).

His motivation would be to further incriminate the Batman to keep the police and Batman busy, by having the police continue hunting him and Batman continuing to run. This would allow him to be more able to take over the crime in Gotham City. This way, we can combine the Riddler of current comics, where he is portrayed as a reformed private investigator who helps the law, and the Riddler of a story like Hush, where he is the mastermind behind it all. I want to see him as an investigator brought in by the police to discover Batman's identity. While spending his time at GCPD he uses their resources and his proximity and intimacy with certain officers to easily get close to them and to commit the murders and leave the evidence that implicates the Batman.

Only the Batman, when putting all the clues together can see that there is a larger scheme at work here, and discovers clues that allow him to know that this killer, this Riddler, is the true culprit but that he has intimate knowledge of what happened to Harvey Dent.

-R