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

[TheWrathOfGod]

From a comic standpoint and the progression of modern Batman it’s the next logical step to include Robin. Nolan and company are severely lacking a comic foundation to base the plot of Batman 3 off of, and personally I don’t think just adding a new villain will prove for a valuable story.

Catwoman, Black Mask, Penguin, and the Riddler aren’t dynamic enough characters to tie the Nolan films together in a narrative arc. Batman needs to be reminded of his past and what better way to do that than to add Robin.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Just think of the potential...




Nolan is smart enough to understand the importance of well thought out exposition, and adding the death of Robin to the established mythos would bring the character to a new dynamic level.

 

[Melkay]

Robin?! Nolan, kill these infidels.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Robin?! Nolan, kill these infidels.

It would be a complete reinvention of the character. Forget the word "sidekick," Robin would just be another casualty in Batman’s war on the underworld. Bruce Wayne adopts Dick Grayson in the same way Angelina adopts kids.

Nolan needs to seriously consider Robin if he wishes to have a compelling story for the third film. Catwoman, Black Mask, Riddler, Penguin, none connect the character to his origins in the way Robin would.

 

[Saint]

Robin?! Nolan, kill these infidels.

"Infidel" means unbeliever. In this scenario, you would be the infidel, since you don't believe in the potential of Robin.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

"I don't know why [sequels are] hard to do. Maybe there's so much expectation to them. But I wouldn't want to do one if it weren't going to be as good as the first or second. That's not respectful to the fans."- Christopher Nolan

For that to happen Nolan needs create a compelling storyline that ties all of the films together. Looking at the career of Batman there are only a handful of important stories that are essential to the character; Year One, The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughs, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, A Death in the Family, and The Dark Knight Returns. These are the core stories that encompass the Batman mythos and for Nolan to do the character true justice he needs to find a way to incorporate Robin; just use All Stars as a starting point. Batman needs to be redeemed by Gotham City and using the Death of Robin to accomplish this goal is in my opinion a genius move.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

After Batman 3, they should make another one 20 years into the future, a lose adaptation of TDK:R and have a new and older cast. It could be a stand alone but in the same universe. So Alfred is dead, and the gangs follow Batman, the Joker (now released), Two-Face (had been presumed dead) and maybe Black Mask (?). Introduce Dick Grayson the same way the female Robin was introduced in TDK:R, only have him be around 16 and one of the main guys in the gang Batman is taking on at the time. Barbara Gordon could lend her father and Batman a hand in one of the last scenes, foreshadowing her role as Batman. This way it could be considered a sequel, will bring in Robin, hint at Batgirl, and bring back the Joker (they'd be forced to recast him due to age anyways) but it could also be a standalone film.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

I'm all for making a film version of TDKR, and in fact if Nolan wants to top The Dark Knight he should just use the plot for a third film. But the aspect of TDKR that is so compelling is that Robin died and Batman blames himself. Nolan should either make TDKR or use A Death In the Family for Batman 3.

 

[hatebox]

I've thought very long and hard about this, and have so many thoughts on the issue that I've had to condense them into a more palatable argument, which basically goes along the lines of:

**** Robin.

 

[Saint]

I, too, shall distill my counterargument to that point:

"No."

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Frank Miller's All Stars is proving that Robin can be done in a dark manner. A Death in the Family is such an important part of the Batman mythos that ignoring it would be an insult to the source material.

 

[hatebox]

Ok. They should include Robin, but only in 70 years, when I'll be probably be dead. Then they can include him.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Or else what? You'll be a little ticked and forget about it once Nolan does it justice?

 

[SPider-T0rch]

Or else what? You'll be a little ticked and forget about it once Nolan does it justice?

That's what i say too. I'd like to see Nolan try to adapt Robin in a future movie. I think Robin, if done properly, could work out for the better. I wish people here weren't so damn close-minded

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

I agree, Nolan has to leave all options open for the third film if he wishes to continue the caliber of quality.

 

[sdc10]

Nolan said he doesn't want to add Robin because he wanted to portray a young Batman as a result Robin (Dick Grayson) would still be too young. Also personally i dont think Batman in the films is ready for that kind of responsibility. I mean he just lost the love of his life and hes now a complete lawless vigilante in the eyes of the people of Gotham, so no i just dont think he would be ready.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Ok. They should include Robin, but only in 70 years, when I'll be probably be dead. Then they can include him.

What if you never die?

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Nolan said he doesn't want to add Robin because he wanted to portray a young Batman as a result Robin (Dick Grayson) would still be too young. Also personally i dont think Batman in the films is ready for that kind of responsibility. I mean he just lost the love of his life and hes now a complete lawless vigilante in the eyes of the people of Gotham, so no i just dont think he would be ready.

Personally I think Batman needs to be reminded of his past and Dick Grayson fulfills that role. It would be a difficult thing to execute, but I don't doubt Nolan. Just think of it as what they did on Nip/Tuck with Wilbur and Dr. Troy.

 

[GlasgowBat]

robin could be done well, so i wont be angry if nolan does it.

it's a huge task though, so i won't cry myself to sleep if there's no place for grayson.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Seriously, just get over killing Robin. It's stupid. Really stupid. It's also selfish that you want a character in a movie only if he is diluted to the point of not being interesting and then just killed off. is that the best you can do? Contrary to popular belief, offing characters left and right does NOT equal development.

If Robin is to be done (and I believe he should), he needs to be done the right way. Batman tired of fighting is advised by Alfred to take a break from fighting to visit a circus ("Your mother did so love the circus sir"). Dick's parents die and Bruce adopts him, hoping to make better of a boy where he himself could not. Eventually after seeing more of Batman than Bruce, Bruce reveals his identity to Robin. Eventually, in the climax of the film, Batman is near beaten and Robin comes into help (Bats didn't actually count on his training him to actually result in this).

See? That way, you get loads of development as Bruce pulls himself back from the brink, and the Robin haters get there cake and eat it too, he's only in the final fight and given that Nolan probably won't make a fourth it ends with their pact.

Much, much better than killing him, or making him a murderer, or making him a 26 year old vigilante with no ties to Batman, or just as a computer whiz in the Batcave.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

The whole point in having Robin is to kill him off. More blood on Batman's hands. The only good Robin story is A Death in the Family. People love to see Robin being beat to a pulp and then blown sky high.

 

[kid dropper]

try robin year one, or dark victory

 

[Melkay]

"Infidel" means unbeliever. In this scenario, you would be the infidel, since you don't believe in the potential of Robin.

No, you're the infidel for not believen in a robinless Batman.
Batman is the only god, and Nolan is his prophet.

It would be a complete reinvention of the character. Forget the word "sidekick," Robin would just be another casualty in Batman’s war on the underworld. Bruce Wayne adopts Dick Grayson in the same way Angelina adopts kids.

THAT is what is so wrong about the idea. Nolan's Batman works alone. Period. If the scene with the copycats didn't make that clear to you, I don't know what will. Nolan's Batman won't ever, ever, put a boy in harms way.
Or become homosexual.

Robin is not integral for the character... is actually contradictory for the character. A Batman with Robin is OUT OF CHARACTER, and don't even get me started with the comics.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Well since Robin debuted in Detective Comics #38 in 1940, I would totally agree with you that it is out of character to include the boy wonder, LOL. Robin wouldn't be a crime fighting sidekick, just a modern version of young Bruce Wayne who would be beaten to death by Black Mask (ala Stephanie Brown). I don't see any problems there.

 

[Saint]

THAT is what is so wrong about the idea. Nolan's Batman works alone. Period.

Yeah, except for all the people he works with. Like Alfred. Oh, and Lucius. And Gordon. Oops, forgot Dent, too. What, do they not count because they don't wear costumes?

Robin is not integral for the character... is actually contradictory for the character.

Nonsense. The opposite is true: Robin is completely integral for the character, and any argument to the contrary demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Batman. But then, many of Robin's detractors seem to make that mistake: they confuse the way they would like Batman to be, with the way he actually is.