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

[Saint]

Tim Drake should have trained a lot more than he did in the comics, and that's a fact. In theory if he's hanging out with Batman he's got one mentor who can teach him what it would otherwise take dozens of men to teach. But Tim barely hangs out with Batman, so that doesn't really play, either.

Not entirely accurate. While we can assume most of Tim's training took place off-screen, so to speak, also notable is that in his earlier days he fulfilled a support role. Tim has always been played as less of a combatant and more of a detective and computer specialist.

More recently, Batman and Tim spent a year abroad retracing the steps he took to become Batman, and Bruce has legally adopted Tim--so they are spending a great deal more time together.

 

[dude stannis]

Look face it robin is as important to batman as alfred. Everyone blames robin for ruining the last two bat films but that couldnt be farther from the truth. The only problem with robin in BF and BR was that he was to old. This is supposed to be a comic book movie, so make it like comic book and add the boy wonder. He doesent have to be robin, I would settle for dick grayson, as long as he is living with bruce by the end of the film.

It's not spiderfreddie, it's Michael Jackson.

 

[COMPO]

what if at first Robin is fighting crime but, to him its all a game a joke, an adventure if you will. He gets hurt (not too badly) and this could provoke batman into shouting at him and saying: "This isn't a game. If you think it is then, you get yourself hurt or killed. This is serious. Start growing up and stop playing around or you can forget being my partner."

This makes Robin become more focused and being more serious.

 

[SWAT]

I don't like Robin...

 

[El Payaso]

I don't really care if it excuses him or not. He doesn't need to be excused. He trained a boy who was so exceptionally skilled that he could fight grown men, and that's that. If Robin had not been skilled enough, Batman would not have allowed him to fight crime.

Furthermore, your point is irrelevant because I pointed out rather clearly that--in the film--Batman shouldn't allow Dick to enter combat situations; Dick would only do it against Batman's wishes, or not at all.

So.... Batman trains Robin for "fighting grown men" but he "shouldn't allow Dick to enter combat situations" because it is "against Batman wishes"?????

Excuse the obviousness here, but.... why training a kid for certain situations if you don't want him to get involved in those very situations?

No, I don't want him to be like he was in Batman Forever because Batman Forever was a campy piece of crap.

Still the plotline can be appreciated independently of the results. Forever was the closest I was on buying this Robin thing. A 16 y.o. Robin and Bruce having in his house as a momentary measure to help the kid to go to a worse place. In the process, Bruce discovers the kid is after revenge and tries to tell Dick to forget about it based on his own experience.

I want him to be like he is in the comics, with the exception that his duties should be support and recon instead of combat.

Support and Recon??? No combat Robin? Then why all the training? Then why not just Alfred o Gordon or Fox, or even better, all of them instead Robin?

 

[StorminNorman]

^Bruce has let each of the Robins "share" his life.

Yes, because he had to in some form or another.

Dick Grayson - He was looking for revenge, the only way to protect him was to train him and prevent him from getting hurt.

Jason Todd - He came from the streets, training him was (again) the best way to protect him.

Tim Drake - He was smart enough to actually connect the dots and piece together that Bruce Wayne is Batman. He went out looking to become Robin.

What I was getting at is that Bruce would never and should never LOOK for a partner. He doesn't want anyone else to live his life. However if he is put in a situation where he needs to, for one reason or another, he will - at the same time hoping they do not make the same mistakes he has in life.

 

[StorminNorman]

umm what? It's not about finding someone to share his life with, how did you get that from what i wrote? Try reading properly before posting, it really really helps.

I said that Batman may come to a point where he realises he will not be able to do this job forever, and that his war on crime is not going to be won anytime soon-therefore he needs to find another person who will help him and eventually take over if the need arises. Like training a padawan.

Saint basically summed up what I was going to say.

Again, if Batman goes out to actively find an heir to his legacy (as the Dark Knight), then he IS looking for someone to share his life with. He is asking another to live life with the same burdens he has. Batman would not do that.

 

[Katsuro]

I don't like Robin...

Thanks for sharing.

 

[StorminNorman]

None of what you said excuse Bruce Wayne from letting kids fight crime.

I don't think Bruce Wayne initially trained Dick Grayson with the idea that he was getting a Kiddy Crime Fighter. He trained him so that he could take care of himself when it came to seeking revenge on his parents killer. Training that not only made him stronger phyiscally, but mentally (preventing him from killing the man when he tracked him down). Dick Grayson kinda forced his way into partnership after that. I, being fairly Machiavellian, see that the ends justified the means here.

 

[Abe Rush]

I don't think Bruce Wayne initially trained Dick Grayson with the idea that he was getting a Kiddy Crime Fighter. He trained him so that he could take care of himself when it came to seeking revenge on his parents killer. Training that not only made him stronger phyiscally, but mentally (preventing him from killing the man when he tracked him down). Dick Grayson kinda forced his way into partnership after that. I, being fairly Machiavellian, see that the ends justified the means here.

For some reason, this doesn't seem to make sense...

Instead of simply trying to convince Dick that revenge isn't the solution and that it will only lead to more pain ( or whatever ) he decides to show him how to hurt people while at the same time teaching him that it's not right to kill? In other words Batman DID want to see Dick take revenge... he wanted him to physically hurt everyone that did him wrong, but just not go as far as kill them?!?

... something's not right here.

 

[StorminNorman]

For some reason, this doesn't seem to make sense...

Instead of simply trying to convince Dick that revenge isn't the solution and that it will only lead to more pain ( or whatever ) he decides to show him how to hurt people while at the same time teaching him that it's not right to kill? In other words Batman DID want to see Dick take revenge... he wanted him to physically hurt everyone that did him wrong, but just not go as far as kill them?!?

... something's not right here.

How can Bruce convince Dick that revenge isn't the answer when he can not convince himself that? Is not a part of his drive in his "war on crime" his drive for revenge?

 

[Abe Rush]

How can Bruce convince Dick that revenge isn't the answer when he can not convince himself that? Is not a part of his drive in his "war on crime" his drive for revenge?

You think he's still convinced that revenge is the way to go?
We're not talking about the same Batman then...

I'm not too familiar with the Robin era, so I'm not aware if that's how he was when he decided to take Robin under his wing, but I would think Batman would consider revenge as not being the answer before deciding to "train" Robin, no?

 

[Katsuro]

For some reason, this doesn't seem to make sense...

Instead of simply trying to convince Dick that revenge isn't the solution and that it will only lead to more pain ( or whatever ) he decides to show him how to hurt people while at the same time teaching him that it's not right to kill? In other words Batman DID want to see Dick take revenge... he wanted him to physically hurt everyone that did him wrong, but just not go as far as kill them?!?

... something's not right here.

Since when has Batman's mission just been about beating people up? I dont remember Bruce Wayne's vow to his parents being to hurt people but just not kill them.

 

[Abe Rush]

Since when has Batman's mission just been about beating people up? I dont remember Bruce Wayne's vow to his parents being to hurt people but just not kill them.

That kind of was my point in my previous post(s)...

He trained him so that he could take care of himself when it came to seeking revenge on his parents killer.

StorminNorman said that Batman teached Robin how to "take care of himself", which in other words means beat people up when it came time for him to "seek revenge"... and when you look at what I posted, I did say that I didn't think Batman still believed in the concept of "revenge", which is why I think it would be odd for him to help Robin in his persuit for revenge, by giving him, in a way, the tools to make it happen.

 

[Saint]

So.... Batman trains Robin for "fighting grown men" but he "shouldn't allow Dick to enter combat situations" because it is "against Batman wishes"????? Excuse the obviousness here, but.... why training a kid for certain situations if you don't want him to get involved in those very situations?

I was speaking of the comics. Please execute your reading comprehension software, and you should be able to tell that at one point in my post--prefaced by the words "in the film"--I switch from the comics to the film.

Still the plotline can be appreciated independently of the results. Forever was the closest I was on buying this Robin thing. A 16 y.o. Robin and Bruce having in his house as a momentary measure to help the kid to go to a worse place. In the process, Bruce discovers the kid is after revenge and tries to tell Dick to forget about it based on his own experience.

If Forever was the "closest" you've gotten to buying the Robin concept, you clearly do not read the correct comics. Fortunately, this does not preclude them from existing.

Support and Recon??? No combat Robin? Then why all the training?

Even though I addressed this above, I would mention that Robin should still receive combat training for safety reasons.

Then why not just Alfred o Gordon or Fox, or even better, all of them instead Robin?

Because those characters are not Robin. Those characters are not Batman's son. The reason I want Robin in the movie is because he is an important character, he is a part of Bruce Wayne. Removing Robin is like removing Thomas Wayne. You're cutting out a part of his family, a person who affects who he is. This is a basic truth of storytelling.

 

[Katsuro]

That kind of was my point in my previous post(s)...

then if you can accept that Batman's mission isn't to just beat people up, why can't you accept the same about Robin? Batman doesn't train Robin to make bad guys hurt, he trains him to channel his anger and frustration into a force for good. It's about more than just making himself feel good, which is what revenge essentially is.

 

[Abe Rush]

then if you can accept that Batman's mission isn't to just beat people up, why can't you accept the same about Robin? Batman doesn't train Robin to make bad guys hurt, he trains him to channel his anger and frustration into a force for good. It's about more than just making himself feel good, which is what revenge essentially is.

Katsuro... one again, my comment was based off of StorminNorman's statement about Batman training Robin in order to eventually "seek revenge", which I think wasn't actually the case.

 

[Eros]

then if you can accept that Batman's mission isn't to just beat people up, why can't you accept the same about Robin? Batman doesn't train Robin to make bad guys hurt, he trains him to channel his anger and frustration into a force for good. It's about more than just making himself feel good, which is what revenge essentially is.

so would does it make it right to allow 9 year old acrobats, and 12 year old street punks to fight crime by your side? where is this Batman code he has, it rather hypocritical on Batmans part. The Gotham Police see batman running around with litte boys and girls in costumes, and they seem to be fine with it as well. Jason todd died becuase Batman was an idiot, Tim Drake risks his 17 year old life everyday becasue Batman is idiot. Dick Graysons resented Batman for years, and he probbaly has more mental issue then Jason Todd. Batman runs around gotham fighting criminals with kids, and yet nobody seems to find this alittle disturbing?

 

[Saint]

Seems to me like you just don't like the comic book version of Batman.

Furthermore, your point that Batman puts these kids in danger is grossly incorrect. Batman allows them to become Robin so he can keep them in a controlled environment under his supervision. Otherwise, they would be out on the street in danger without Batman to watch out for them, without the training they need, and without the tools to keep them alive.

 

[04nbod]

i like robin and think if nolan had imagination he could work well in his universe

*runs and hides from the flames*

 

[The Last Meatbag]

Robin would work. The end.

And he doesn't have to be 17 for it to work.

 

[Matt.S99]

i want robin
played by zac efron but tim drake not dick,the only dick grayson i want is nightwing(jared padalecki)

 

[El Payaso]

I was speaking of the comics. Please execute your reading comprehension software, and you should be able to tell that at one point in my post--prefaced by the words "in the film"--I switch from the comics to the film.

Yeah and the thing seems to be that you want to change radically the character in some aspects. Well, with Robin could never be any different than change him since the original concepot has little to add to Batman (except younger fans.)

If Forever was the "closest" you've gotten to buying the Robin concept, you clearly do not read the correct comics. Fortunately, this does not preclude them from existing.

haha?

Even though I addressed this above, I would mention that Robin should still receive combat training for safety reasons.

Which is very different from the attack fighting Batman got.

Because those characters are not Robin. Those characters are not Batman's son. The reason I want Robin in the movie is because he is an important character, he is a part of Bruce Wayne. Removing Robin is like removing Thomas Wayne. You're cutting out a part of his family, a person who affects who he is. This is a basic truth of storytelling.

You want to turn Batman into a father. Allow me to disagree. Sounds a terrible idea. If anything I think he would allow himself to be father once he quit as Batman and can have a normal life.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

That kind of was my point in my previous post(s)...



StorminNorman said that Batman teached Robin how to "take care of himself", which in other words means beat people up when it came time for him to "seek revenge"... and when you look at what I posted, I did say that I didn't think Batman still believed in the concept of "revenge", which is why I think it would be odd for him to help Robin in his persuit for revenge, by giving him, in a way, the tools to make it happen.

It has to be more than that. It has to be convincing Robin that he doesn't need or want revenge. That he should turn his outrage towards a positive and constructive goal like building a better future. Protecting the innocent, standing up for justice and decency and all of that.

 

[Saint]

Yeah and the thing seems to be that you want to change radically the character in some aspects. Well, with Robin could never be any different than change him since the original concepot has little to add to Batman (except younger fans.)

Change what character? The only change I've suggested is that Robin only enter combat against Batman's will, which is mostly true in modern Batman history.

You want to turn Batman into a father. Allow me to disagree. Sounds a terrible idea. If anything I think he would allow himself to be father once he quit as Batman and can have a normal life.

He has been a father since 1941, regardless of what you think. What you think is simply incorrect. He has had two adopted children (Dick and Tim; I don't believe he ever legally adopted Jason). He has been the father and caretaker of children through his entire career. The theme of the surrogate family Batman has built for himself has been consistent for over sixty years. If you think otherwise, you are simply ignoring the source material.

If anyone is suggesting "radical changes," it's you. You want to remove defining aspects of Batman, and that's stupid.