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

[Saint]

But I mean WB forcing Nolan to put in a character that could possibly make the franchise crash once again would be a mistake.

Robin did not make the franchise crash: poor writing, directing, and acting made the franchise crash.

 

[DCnightwing23]

I have an idea for Dick Grayson to be introduced into the Nolan batman films.

I mean maybe, with all the dirty cops in Gotham, they decide to bring in a rookie cop into the fold, age 23 or 24, named Dick Grayson, who makes a kinda friendship with Com. Gordan
since Gordan is also a "good" cop, idk just saying, look at my other idea on page 39.

Feel free to comment

 

[Saint]

did you read Hulk Grey?

Actually, no. I honestly couldn't tell you what exactly changed my mind. It was a gradual thing.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Robin ruins every BM thing he touches & the GP knows that.

 

[Saint]

No Robin! For The Love Of God No Robin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May Robin die a horrible, horrible death.

Oh...and never show in Nolan's Batman.

Just say no to sidekicks.

No Robin period.

No, no, no.

I'm all for a Robin in the comics and such, but NEVER should he be in a movie again.

I really don't want Robin in these films. I just feel that it would make them kiddish agian but thats me.

why do we need robin? yeah he's in the comics. but people dont buy the comics and watch the movies because of robin. it's because of batman. why not throw in batgirl while you're at it.

No Robin Period!

No No No No No No Nooooooo

I hate Robin. His costume makes no sense in relation to Batman's goal.
And he's just plain annoying.

I prefer Batman the loner.

This Series Is About The Mother ****** DARK KNIGHT! NO ROBIN! Nuff Said

sorry... no robin... won't happen.. people don't go the circus in big cities anymore.... no circus in gotham... no robin in gotham...

What a shame it would be to do another Brokeback Mountain without Heath Ledger, instead starring Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson.

Robin ruins every BM thing he touches & the GP knows that.

I number of posts in this thread completely devoid of any actual argument is alarming. I'd love to see these guys in a political debate: "Barack Obama would ruin EVERYTHING! Nevermind why or how!"

 

[Nepenthes]

^ yep, brainless typing. which is why I made the Adapting Robin thread, and it generally worked. where the hell is that anyway?

 

[Saint]

I would just prefer that people make reasoned arguments as to why Robin shouldn't be used (and a few do), regardless of the fact that I disagree. It just seems so fruitless to just say "No Robin, he sucks!" I mean, you could just as easily write that on a piece of paper, show it to no one, and it would have the same effect.

 

[zenith16]

how much do you two want to bet that not only are those comment's made by one person with multiple handles of names to make seem like he was mutlple people, but he/she was in a place like a cybercafe and made the votes go to 80 so that some of you new guys would be dis trot to vote.

 

[Nepenthes]

seems I missed this Saint

The claim I was refuting was that Robin adds "unnecessary light" to Batman. Since Batman is about overcoming darkness, the light is necessary.

ah ok makes sense

I'm not sure how to respond to this, because it doesn't make logical sense. It's like saying being a child forever is the same as being a child and then growing to adulthood. "Being dark" is not the same as "Overcoming darkness" because the former is stagnation and the latter is progression.

I didn't mean 'being dark' as a state of stagnation though. I see overcoming darkness as accepting it as part his core self that will always be there. It stays in place, but the progression is in the way he manages and uses it. And yeah sure Robin assists in that. Moot point, I'm just explaining why I said the two terms were almost the same thing.

I'm unclear on how this paragraph is supposed to be a counterargument to what I suggested. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just not following the flow of our conversation right now.

Sorry it wasn't really supposed to counter, i was just musing I guess

The argument I responded to originally was that Robin adds "unnecessary light" to Batman, as Batman should be "dark." This is a naive argument, as while Batman may be dark, the theme of Batman comics has always ben conquering the dark. The sacrifice Bruce Wayne has always believed necessary to do his job was that he could have no personal life, no happiness for himself. He has always believed, deep down, that it was an either/or chose: either he has a life, or he has the mission. More importantly, he has always wondered if it meant the sacrifice of his humanity--that he would have to be ruled by his darker nature, and even use the tools of evil to defeat it. Violence, anger, guilt. The purpose Robin serves, more than anything, is to demonstrate to Bruce that it doesn't have to be that way. Dick Grayson is the version of Bruce Wayne that was able to find balance, and still be dedicated to the mission without sacrificing his own humanity. Dick is, for all intents and purposes, a happy, well-adjusted, healthy individual--everything Bruce doesn't believe he can be.

Batman needs Dick, because nobody else can demonstrate this quality. Nobody else lives the life Batman does--nobody except Dick Grayson. Nobody else has come from that same place of tragedy to take on that same mission. Accordingly, Dick is the only person who can show Bruce that the life doesn't have to swallow him up. Dick is the person that Bruce wants to be, even if he could never admit it..
...

In a way, the struggle isn't purely "Can I, Bruce Wayne, defeat evil without losing myself," because if the defeat of evil means the loss of his own humanity, he'd pay that price readily. The struggle is "Can the human race defeat evil without losing itself." Every time Bruce looks in a mirror, he sees that the answer is probably no. But when he looks at Dick, he sees the answer is probably yes, because Dick has already done it. Dick never gave himself over to the dark the way Bruce did; he's always been able to keep that balance without sacrificing the mission. Dick gives Bruce hope that humanity can overcome evil without becoming it. If everyone was like Bruce Wayne, evil would be gone, but we wouldn't be human any longer. If everybody was like Dick Grayson, evil would be gone and we'd still be human. And yes, somewhere Bruce also sees hope for himself in Dick, not just for humanity.

Absolutely. that's the core of it .

it's also cool to compare that to Supermans central qualities, optimism and such, and how they've kind of met in the middle with Nightwing.

how important do you think the Robin colors are for visualizing the notion you've outlined though? If Robin is the path to becoming that man at peace with himself, and Nightwing is the endpoint, relaxing his struggle against angst and no longer needing such flamboyant resistance. I think the colours (all of them; red green and yellow - to be as bold as possible) are hugely beneficial to the concept and the way you've outlined it. they're very aggressive in a way, like an outburst or a rejection, or they can even signal inner emotional violence, being on bright display. And of course inversely (and more obviously) they're an adversity to darkness, either way works. But comparing it to batmans sombre black and grey shows two complementary ways of dealing with the issues.

 

[Timstuff]

Yes: essentials like Robin.

There are few things in geekdom that I would truly call "blasphemous," but calling Robin an essential part of Batman. Tell me, where were all the fanboys whining about how Supergirl should have been in Superman Returns? Do you think fanboys are going to whine if Bucky isn't in the Captain America movie? And why has Spider-Man been able to last for 40+ years of success, when he has never even had a sidekick?

My point in all this, is why do some members of the Batman fanbase have put Robin on some kind of pedestal, as if he's any different from any other lame teenage sidekick who's been injected into the pages of any other popular comic book? I believe that Batman is a fully realized and complete character WITHOUT Robin, and there are plenty of movies, comics, and TV show episodes that prove it. Robin is about as essential to Batman as pancakes are to bowling pins.

 

[zenith16]

marvel doesn't do side kick's ,they do team ups, partners, and team mates. and make their teen heroes ala johnny storm full fledged partners ala fantastic four on the jump. which set marvel on the map with that move cause most of their story are done in way that rivals the reason batman started to fight crime.

Just as spider man and the X-men became heroes when they were teens and blew away all other comic's with in marvel in popularity wise as well as out to other comic company's cause their heroes and heroins were more relate able and those guys had better cause's for fighting crime both personally and professionally then the avengers and so forth. you know better then to bring up the reason for spider man and such when that is the case for marvel characters.

super girl didn't show up in movies wise cause the movie films never got that far cause there was in fights between the director's and the producers over money and she didn't show up until he was ona team like the JLA or something.

you really should know better then to bring super girl up. Bucky well you've seen the other cap movies which were bad with out him. so I wouldn't even bother to bring up captain America's movies. those were piss poor. I don't believe you even went there of all places.

 

[Nepenthes]

There are few things in geekdom that I would truly call "blasphemous," but calling Robin an essential part of Batman. Tell me, where were all the fanboys whining about how Supergirl should have been in Superman Returns? Do you think fanboys are going to whine if Bucky isn't in the Captain America movie? And why has Spider-Man been able to last for 40+ years of success, when he has never even had a sidekick?

My point in all this, is why do some members of the Batman fanbase have put Robin on some kind of pedestal, as if he's any different from any other lame teenage sidekick who's been injected into the pages of any other popular comic book? I believe that Batman is a fully realized and complete character WITHOUT Robin, and there are plenty of movies, comics, and TV show episodes that prove it. Robin is about as essential to Batman as pancakes are to bowling pins.

Why? Try reading. You continue to ignore points that are made to you. so you're basically talking and restating to yourself, what's the point then. If you don't like robin fine, but don't ask why if you don't even want to know. So you're against something you don't even understand (comparing Robin to Supermans Supergirl, wow), that's great.

there are plenty of movies, comics, and TV show episodes that prove it

Not nearly as many that illustrate the opposite. And the movies that don;t include Robin only do so simply because they're set in Batman early days - both early days fictionally, and early in the introduction (or reintroduction) of Batman to mainstream audiences. And again, the grimmest and perhaps most widely read batman comic ever - Dark Knight Returns - still found reason to create a brand new Robin.

 

[El Payaso]

I would just prefer that people make reasoned arguments as to why Robin shouldn't be used (and a few do), regardless of the fact that I disagree. It just seems so fruitless to just say "No Robin, he sucks!" I mean, you could just as easily write that on a piece of paper, show it to no one, and it would have the same effect.

Nolan, on th other hand, has said that Robin is "in a crib somehwhere." I admit that's dramatically different... but the result is the same.

 

[zenith16]

don't bother with el payaso saint that comment he made is just ment to annoy. just pass him over.

 

[Timstuff]

Not nearly as many that illustrate the opposite.

I have yet to read a comic, watch a movie, or an episode of a TV show that has made me think "Wow, Batman really wasn't as good without Robin, was he?" I'll let you know if I find one, but I don't suppose that I ever will. Batman's success as a stand-alone hero across varying forms of media is much greater than when he has been with Robin, and that is strong evidence that he is better that way. TDK would not be generating Oscar buzz if Robin was in it, and I don't think it would be breaking box office records left and right either. When you find a piece of Batman media with Robin that has generated that kind of pandemonium, let me know. Until then, TDK will be showing just how much Batman does not need Robin.

 

[zenith16]

lets see mask of the phantasm he needed help from the cops hunting down and that was clearly shown they nearly ended him and that was made known. It was shown JL with hawk girl saving his life during that burning building where he went to save a infant kid that was shown helping him up a burning fallen stair case. super saving him for the falling watch tower falling from space. ohhhhh don't make bring up the batman TAS LOL.

 

[Timstuff]

Mask of the Phantasm was an amazing movie, and it did not have Robin. The episodes of Batman TAS without Robin were the best ones in many peoples' opinions (including my own). And lastly, which of the pieces of media that you've mentioned generate the kind of success that TDK has? Like I said, when the most successful piece of Batman media ever does not have Robin, it really calls into question how important he is to Batman's character. TDK is proving what I've been saying for years: Batman doesn't need Robin, and he's better without him.

 

[zenith16]

if he had robin he wouldn't have had needed andrea to save his butt in Mask of the Phantasm. ether way the bat man needed help and that proved it. nuff said. oh wait that's a marvel saying. bah still applys. the bat has been shown getting back up for a while now. why cause there's only somuch one guy can do. he's suposed to be one of the smartest men in the DCU smart people know when they need help. this argument is going no where.
LOL

 

[Nepenthes]

I have yet to read a comic, watch a movie, or an episode of a TV show that has made me think "Wow, Batman really wasn't as good without Robin, was he?" I'll let you know if I find one, but I don't suppose that I ever will. Batman's success as a stand-alone hero across varying forms of media is much greater than when he has been with Robin, and that is strong evidence that he is better that way. TDK would not be generating Oscar buzz if Robin was in it, and I don't think it would be breaking box office records left and right either. When you find a piece of Batman media with Robin that has generated that kind of pandemonium, let me know. Until then, TDK will be showing just how much Batman does not need Robin.

"Batmans success as a stand alone hero"....christ, okay, for the third time:

The movies that don't include Robin only do so simply because they're set in Batmans early days - both early days fictionally, and early in the introduction (or reintroduction) of Batman to mainstream audiences.

How do you address this? You say that the most successful movies have not included Robin, and I give you the reason why they have not, a reason that has nothing to do with the merits of Robin as a character. Pointing to successful films that do not include Robin is in no way a logical reason to never include him at all. You may as well say that Llando or Boba Fett should never have been in Star Wars2 simply because the first movie did fine without them. Introducing Batman & robin at the same time was never going to be the ideal option.

You also conveniently forget to mention that the Robin movies were made by a guy called Joel Schumacher. As if Robin was the entire reason those movies were camp. Please try to be fair.

I mean if we're not being fair, I could just as easily say (again) that the most popular and widely read Batman comic of all time created a brand new Robin, so therefore Robin obviously has a place, right, hows that? Very simplistic no?

Neverminding the entire point of the ending of DKR, in case you missed that. You do remember that ending right? Let me guess, you don't think DKR is that great a book. And Robin played no meanignful part. right.

 

[Timstuff]

if he had robin he wouldn't have had needed andrea to save his butt in Mask of the Phantasm. ether way the bat man needed help and that proved it. nuff said. oh wait that's a marvel saying. bah still applys. the bat has been shown getting back up for a while now. why cause there's only somuch one guy can do. he's suposed to be one of the smartest men in the DCU smart people know when they need help. this argument is going no where.
LOL

So, your saying that getting help from Robin is supposed to be less humiliating than getting help from a woman? Wow, that's both sexist and silly at the same time.

 

[Ziggyman]

No Robin...

 

[zenith16]

So, your saying that getting help from Robin is supposed to be less humiliating than getting help from a woman? Wow, that's both sexist and silly at the same time.

actually I never said such a thing. you did though which shows what type of person you are. putting words in my mouth cause your losing it. and every one can see it now that you pulled this stunt. it's very sad of you man. and laugh able.

 

[Timstuff]

"Batmans success as a stand alone hero"....christ, okay, for the third time:

The movies that don't include Robin only do so simply because they're set in Batmans early days - both early days fictionally, and early in the introduction (or reintroduction) of Batman to mainstream audiences.

Actually, in Nolan's case it's because almost everyone involved with the movies have stated that they hate Robin, so you're probably wrong.

How do you address this? You say that most successful movies have not included Robin, and I give you the reason why they have not, a reason that has nothing to do with the merits of Robin as a character. Pointing to successful films that do not include Robin is no way a logical reason to never include him at all. You may as well say that Llando or Boba Fett should have been in Star Wars2 simply because the first movie did fine without them.

You also conveniently forget to mention that the Robin movies were made by a guy called Joel Schumacher. As if Robin was the entire reasons those movies were camp. Please try to be fair.

The reason Robin has not been in any good movies is because the good directors do not want to use him, for the same reasons that a great many Batman fans would not use him. Joel Schumacher was a hack, and he wanted to use Robin. Go figure.

 

[Timstuff]

actually I never said such a thing. you did though which shows what type of person you are. putting words in my mouth cause your losing it. and every one can see it now that you pulled this stunt. it's very sad of you man. and laugh able.

Aw come on... Why so serious?

 

[ray243]

How about this argument.

The third film CAN work well WITHOUT robin...even if the possiblity of a good film with robin exist.



If it can work WITHOUT robin, then there is no real need to add robin.