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

[Asteroid-Man]

God no. Just stop. It's things like this and Schumacher that make it hard for Nolan to realize Robin is a possibility.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

God no. Just stop. It's things like this and Schumacher that make it hard for Nolan to realize Robin is a possibility.

Robin's only purpose in the Batman universe is to die. So let's introduce him and kill em' off in the third film. Black Mask could totally do it. And in the comics he did (Stephanie Brown).

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Robin's only purpose in the Batman universe is to die. So let's introduce him and kill em' off in the third film. Black Mask could totally do it. And in the comics he did (Stephanie Brown).

Okay, now you're just trolling with these stupid comments. A Death in the Family is a horrible story full of contrived storytelling, ironic that such a bad story resolves around his death not his life as you say. Robin is completely integral to Batman's character. You only want a hackish plot that "puts blood on Batman's hands" which is just you wanting to further darken and muddy up the character.

Also you do realise War Games (the arc where Brown died) is also considered a terrible story, even worse than A Death in the Family, half the reason being that Brown was killed off for no good reason. By popular demand she was brought back and is alive in the comics.

 

[Borat]

Okay, now you're just trolling with these stupid comments. A Death in the Family is a horrible story full of contrived storytelling, ironic that such a bad story resolves around his death not his life as you say. Robin is completely integral to Batman's character. You only want a hackish plot that "puts blood on Batman's hands" which is just you wanting to further darken and muddy up the character.

Also you do realise War Games (the arc where Brown died) is also considered a terrible story, even worse than A Death in the Family, half the reason being that Brown was killed off for no good reason. By popular demand she was brought back and is alive in the comics.

I haven't been keeping up with my comics. They brought her back? How'd they manage to do that?

 

[Saint]

They retconned it so that Leslie faked Stephanie's death to get her away from that life. It was kind of dumb, but having Leslie kill her was worse, so I just like to pretend it never happened, haha.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I haven't been keeping up with my comics. They brought her back? How'd they manage to do that?

They passed it off as if she never died.

When she "died", as Leslie put it, Leslie instead took her to Africa (I believe it was Africa, anyway) to do samaritan work with her. Her "resurrection" was, instead of being an actual resurrection, her return to Gotham.

Honestly, I think comics need to stop doing this. I think this is one of the most prominent reasons comics aren't taken as seriously as other forms of fiction.

 

[Saint]

That could have just as easily been seen in any other medium.

 

[CJ]

The only problem with robin in BF and BR was that he was to old.

That is the problem i've always had with Robin. BF Robin was fine, becuase he was an adult and seemed capable of fighting crime on his own.

Kid-Robin, however, is a different story. It's irresponsible of Bruce Wayne to recruit a CHILD to help him fight crime. Doesn't he know he could get killed? What would a kid do against The Joker? (Especially Heath's protrayal o_o) It also seems out-of-character for Bruce Wayne. I imagine Bruce would be refusing all of Robin's requests to be his sidekick until maybe he's in his late 20's, then Bruce might cave in. I can't imagine Bruce gonig up to a kid and saying 'hey wanna be my sidekick?'

I would like to see adult-Robin appear in the Nolan world sometime, becuase he's one of the most important characters in the Bat Universe, but I would like it maybe a '20 years later' thing as a nod to the comics or something. Have Dick Grayson show up as a kid and live in Wayne Manor, then have something happen to Dick makig him want to fight crime, end the series with a 20 years later, with Batman and Robin together or something, idk. I'm not Nolan.

 

[El Payaso]

Are you telling me that Chris Nolan is a coward?
That he can't take risks?

Interesting risks, absolutely. Batman blaming himself for some murders. Robin is just a pointless risk (Batman in a pink suit is a pointless risk).

Boo on those who say so sir!
The ultimate way to one-up most comic movie directors is to introduce a character that is generally hated by the populace and make him work

Mxyzptlk for the next Superman movie? Jar Jar for a Star Wars reboot?

I'm sure sure Mr. Nolan is up for the challenge

I'm sure Mr. Nolan said explicitly that Robin wouldn't appear as long as he was directing.

Also, why Robin when we can go straight to Nightwing!

I agree. I've always said that the less "Robin" Robin is, the more he might work.

I think a large sum of money would change Mr. Bale's outlook on the situation.

And who exactly is interested in offering a large sum of money just to have Robin back in the bat-franchise?

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.

Really? So they already have a plot?

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.

Black Mask, Riddler, Penguin, maybe.

But Catwoman is a different story. She alone can make a new story work. Batman falls in love with her but can't have her since she's on the other side of the line. Half villiain half heroin. It can remind him why did he start with the masked vigilante thing.

Who better to remind him his past than Robin? Catwoman. It's not like Bruice Wayne needs to be reminded of his past since he lives remembering it.

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?

Exactly. And the fact that they are all adults not adopted by a single crimefighter.

Nonsense. The opposite is true: Robin is completely integral for the character, and any argument to the contrary demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Batman.

Explain why please.

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.

Funny, I see the same in Robin supporters. Nolan and Bale said Robin won't be there but there seems to be a great deal of denial about it.

 

[Two-Face]

I can't see Nolan's Batman taking on Boy Wonder, he already blames himself for fall of Harvey Dent & Rachel dying, top all that he has to deal with GPD and Gothamites.

 

[El Payaso]

Not to mention that for the time being he's a fugitive. Next story has to start there.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Another Pic...
http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1383916814232f6729acopyrq9.jpg

Oh my god. Just stop. Begone troll.

 

[Mister J]

Just an idea...

Another Pic...

This routine is getting old and it's going to come to an end, one way or another. Find another hobby.

 

[Saint]

Explain why please.

Don't be ridiculous: you know why, you just don't like it. Don't get me wrong, that's perfectly fair. I don't care if you don't like Robin and don't want him around. That's great. I don't care if you don't like the way he makes Batman. That's great, too. Everyone is entitled to that. My problem is when people start with the "He contradicts Batman, he's so wrong for Batman," and all that nonsense. No, he is not. Any rudimentary examination of the character will show this.

Any action that can be explained or justified within the confines of a character's personality is within character. This is not only about what the character justifies with his own reason, but also what it prompted or compelled by his emotion. Batman's decision to include sidekicks in his crusade has been explained many times. You don't need me to recite these explanations, because you know what they are. It's not necessary that we agree with the decision for it to be in character. It's not necessary that it be a good decision for it to be in character. The opposite is true: it is necessary that we question it, that it be of muddy moral determination and questionable sanity, because that's what makes it interesting.

Funny, I see the same in Robin supporters. Nolan and Bale said Robin won't be there but there seems to be a great deal of denial about it.

I don't understand the comparison. The fact that certain fans still feel Robin should be a part of this series simply means Nolan has made a decision they disagree with and think he should reconsider. I don't see how denial is involved.

 

[Compi716]

I think that Dick Grayson should (and will) be introduced in the third film. Let me stress that: Dick Grayson, NOT Robin. It is a fitting way to end the trilogy, I think, and adds so much more to the mythology of Batman.

 

[StorminNorman]

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.

Which is exactly why Nolan's Batman is still a work in progress. Batman HAS to be able to work with others - he hasn't now. Nolan's Batman needs to evolve into a person that would be willing to have a partner - or else he simply never truly becomes Batman.

Also you can't compare the copy cats with uzi's to a boy whose history is oh-so-similar to Bruce.

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.

No, this is quite simply wrong. Robin is ESSENTIAL to the character, Robin is Bruce Wayne's savior - the person that come in his life and gives him reason to live outside his mission. He keeps him from losing himself in this monster of his.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

That could have just as easily been seen in any other medium.

Nobody's questioning that. I'm stating that I think it's one of the reasons that comic books aren't taken as seriously as other forms of literature. Comics are notorious for killing characters, only to eventually bring them back.

 

[regwec]

I can't be bothered to get embroiled in this, but anyone who sets any store in my opinion on these things can rest assured that Saint is entirely right, in my opinion.

However awkward you might find him, Robin cannot be written out of the Batman mythos. He has been a major part of it for 68 of its 69 years. There has been a Robin recruited, active or remembered in Gotham city for 98.6% of the time that it has been imagined.

 

[hatebox]

Whatever happens I think we can pretty much guarantee that if/when Nolan returns he won't include Robin in the next film.

Obviously this is a forum to discuss these kind of things and I'm not going to say we shouldn't, but personally I wouldn't bother wasting any energy on advocating Nolan should include him because given the two films we've had so far... do you really think he would all of a sudden?

 

[StorminNorman]

Isn't Christian Bale's favorite comic Dark Victory?

 

[regwec]

What do you mean by "all of a sudden"? Each new film in a series must include new scenarios and characters, otherwise it would merely repeat the last film. You could ask why, after Batman Begins, Nolan would include The Joker "all of a sudden". He did it because he thought that was a sensible and interesting way to progress the broader narrative, and create new themes for the drama surrounding the characters we knew from the first film.

It is unnecessary to suppose that the Nolans would fail to apply the same logic to the next sequel.

 

[Saint]

Whatever happens I think we can pretty much guarantee that if/when Nolan returns he won't include Robin in the next film.

Obviously this is a forum to discuss these kind of things and I'm not going to say we shouldn't, but personally I wouldn't bother wasting any energy on advocating Nolan should include him because given the two films we've had so far... do you really think he would all of a sudden?

A person's perspective on such a thing can change fairly quickly. Surely you can think of a character, comic book, or television show that you professed to hate, but grew to love.

I don't know anything about the likelihood of this happening, of course, as I do not know Nolan, nor what his specific disagreement with Robin is. He's never claimed any distaste for the character, but again, I don't know. Suffice to say, I do not expect his mind to change, but it would be nice.

 

[GlasgowBat]

it would fit where we assume the narrative is going to go, wouldn't it, the inclusion of dick grayson?

i think i'm starting to come round to it.......

 

[subzero]

I would be disguested if Robin would be in any of Nolan's films, the great thing about his series is that it gives a feeling of reality and at the same time gives hope that a Batman could be possible in real life, if you add this kind of phony characters like Robin or mr Freeze it will ruin all the masterpiece Nolan did so far .

Actually I don't know what was in the mind of the creators of this character "Robin", he just doesn't fit with Batman, those colours, the age... it looks incredibly odd beside Batman.

 

[Melkay]

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.

Robin debuted because parents commitees and such protested against this comic of a guy who was too dark (and adult) to be a suitable role model for kids, so they tried to make him more “relatable” by making him hanging out in his crusade with a young boy… only to realize the obvious gay subtext and tried to fix that by having them living with an ever-watchful aunt.

Let’s not count all original sources here, please… just how good the material is, because if we don’t do that we could always argue against every post-Bob Kane element added to the Batman mythos. And that would be wrong. Good-bye Miller’s Year One, good-bye Ledger’s Joker.

Adaptations are meant to leave poor elements out. Let’s not fool ourselves and treat Robin as what he is.

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?

Exactly… because they don’t wear costumes, they don’t beat criminals and they don’t get in the way of bullets… except Gordon, but Gordon when Gordon does that he’s not helping Bats, he’s doing his own job. All of them do their jobs, and what you’re asking of this little kid is so much more than that. Bruce would never be convinced to let him… he’s just to stubborn, and working with Robin is out of character in the movies and in the comics.

Also you can't compare the copy cats with uzi's to a boy whose history is oh-so-similar to Bruce.

The kid inherited a billionaire fortune but escaped from it, traveled around the world, was imprisoned and then was adopted and trained by the leader of the League Of Shadows in conquering his own spiritual restlessness and a number of martial arts and other ninja skills?

No, I guess you can’t compare Bruce to anyone.

No, this is quite simply wrong. Robin is ESSENTIAL to the character, Robin is Bruce Wayne's savior - the person that come in his life and gives him reason to live outside his mission. He keeps him from losing himself in this monster of his.

No, that would be Alfred.
Oh, and Catwoman, if you want.

The real Bruce Wayne would NOT put a kid in harm’s way, especially not because he feels lonely…