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

[The Joker]

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

Yes, it is. Which is rather funny because Bale said, and I quote "I'd chain myself outside Warner Bros in protest if they ever decided to include Robin in the movies".

 

[Two-Face]

Yes, it is. Which is rather funny because Bale said, and I quote "I'd chain myself outside Warner Bros in protest if they ever decided to include Robin in the movies".

I thought it was The Long Halloween......

 

[The Joker]

I thought it was The Long Halloween......

It is. He loves both of 'em.

 

[subzero]

Yes, it is. Which is rather funny because Bale said, and I quote "I'd chain myself outside Warner Bros in protest if they ever decided to include Robin in the movies".

Bale and Nolan

 

[StorminNorman]

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.

This is not the case. Robin was a creation of DC Comics to get more kids into Batman during the 40's - it had nothing to do with public pressure because Batman was too "dark".

For years this relationship between Robin and Batman was no more questioned than any of the other countless early 1900's pop culture icons with similar wards.

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.

But Robin has been an important and crucial part of the Batman mythology in every medium and every generation. Its not as if Robin was some creation of the 50's and never seen again (like the other members of the Bat-family), Robin is a cornerstone to Batman's story and removing it would be on the same level as taking away Alfred, Gordon, The Joker, of Catwoman.

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

Robin is simply not a poor element. Read Dark Victory, watching Batman The Animated Series, check out the countless great Batman/Robin stories - it works.

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.

Which is why Dick has to be JUST as stubborn. Dick Grayson should be JUST as driven as Bruce was, JUST as determined. Bruce would be forced to train Dick not to create a new weapon to unleash on the underworld but to prepare him for it. If written properly, Dick's path would not be in doubt - he would be fighting crime with Batman no matter if he is Robin or Batman's partner or not. With this being the case, if Bruce actually wants to protect the kid he would have to train. Have to push him to his physical peak, make him ready for the crusade he is going through now.

How is Batman endangering a child's life if the child is going to do it anyway? If anything ignoring it and absolving himself of all responsibility (by not training Dick) would be far more dangerous.

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.

Now your being purposefully dense. The money is important to Bruce's creation (just helpful), where he trained doesn't matter (it just makes for a good story) - what does was a boy saw his parents killed in front of him and he's hurt and mad and dedicated to right that in any way he can, so he trains and he prepares and he unleashes himself on the criminals of Gotham.

Thats what Bruce did. Thats what Dick does. They are kindred spirits.

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

Your father can't teach you the same lessons your son can and Catwoman can never be fully trusted - or at least not quickly enough to work.

Alfred has already proven to be unable to stop Bruce or to make Bruce reconsider - Bruce was going to turn himself in no matter what Alfred said, he disregarded Alfred's fears in Batman Begins. Dick Grayson is needed in Bruce's life. Now if its this film or not, thats up for debate.

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

Again, this is based off the faulty and stupid idea that Bruce Wayne would force Dick into service.

 

[Saint]

Robin debuted because parents commitees and such protested against this comic of a guy who was too dark (and adult)

No.

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

Yes, Robin was introduced to make Batman appeal to a younger audience. Sadly, nobody seems able to explain why this means Robin is not a valuable character. Batman was created for the sole purpose of capitalizing on the popularity of Superman. Should we stop making Batman movies because the motives for his creation were not purely creative? No? Then why is the motivation behind Robin's creation relevant to his inclusion?

only to realize the obvious gay subtext

I always wondered about this: in what universe do you live where there is an "Obvious gay subtext" with regards to a child and a single parental guardian?

The gay "subtext" was the product of idiots and alarmists, and I'm not particularly inclined to say that Robin needs to excised for the sake of halfwits who see gay jokes in everything.

Exactly

"Exactly" what? You said Batman works alone. You were wrong. If your problem is that Robin wears a costume, is a child, or any of these other complaints you've subsequently made, you should have said that to begin with, instead of saying that Robin can't be used because "Batman works alone," which is blatantly false.

working with Robin is out of character in the movies and in the comics.

We've already been through this: something is only "out of character" if it cannot be explained within the confines of the character's personality. Since Batman's decision to include sidekicks can be--and has been--explained, it is not out of character.

No, that would be Alfred.

No, not at all. Robin is singular in the fact that he is the only person who has chosen to adopt the sort of life Bruce has, without sacrificing his own humanity and his own happiness to do it--demonstrating that Bruce need not lapse into darkness as a consequence of being Batman. Alfred is not a substitute for this. No one is a substitute for this, because no one else fights the fight that Batman and Robin do.

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

Who is this "real" Bruce Wayne? The one that has existed with at least eight different sidekicks for 68 years, upon whom all other derivations are based? Or the one in your head?

Again, we have come to the point where you are confusing the way Batman actually is with the way you would like him to be.

 

[hatebox]

What do you mean by "all of a sudden"?

I meant 'all of sudden' simply based on the fact that I don't get the impression at all, from what he's mentioned of Robin, that Nolan had or has any inclination to use Robin. So it would be a surprise to me if he announced that he would.

Yes, it's presuming how he feels on my part... sue me I guess.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Robin works because Bruce Wayne isn’t an adult; he never got over his parents death. In reality a person would mourn for their loved ones and move on with their lives, Bruce Wayne is perpetually stuck in the night his family was killed. The psychological motivation of Batman is extremely interesting and the character of Robin adds to that element. As far as the whole gay routine Frank Miller is quoted saying, “He'd be much healthier if he were gay.” Batman transfers his sexual urges and replaces it with crime fighting. This is where the All Stars line gets the character’s inner-psyche correct. Batman is deeply mentally ill, and still has the moral compass of a child as far as right and wrong is concerned.

 

[hatebox]

Robin works because Bruce Wayne isn’t an adult; he never got over his parents death. In reality a person would mourn for their loved ones and move on with their lives, Bruce Wayne is perpetually stuck in the night his family was killed.

How on Earth does that fact make him decide to take on Robin? I don't understand your logic....

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't like Miller's take on Bruce. I don't think Bruce is a raving psychopath.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Nolan is looking for narrative sustenance for the new Batman film, and the psychological relationship between Batman and Robin is bursting with a complex story.

 

[Melkay]

Robin works because Bruce Wayne isn’t an adult; he never got over his parents death. In reality a person would mourn for their loved ones and move on with their lives, Bruce Wayne is perpetually stuck in the night his family was killed. The psychological motivation of Batman is extremely interesting and the character of Robin adds to that element.

Correction Number 1: Where you say interesting you probably mean "intriguing". The addition of Robin makes it more intriguing. That's the word of choice when it doesn't make sense to you and you can't explain it with words, making it intriguing to you, not interesting.

Nolan is looking for narrative sustenance for the new Batman film, and the psychological relationship between Batman and Robin is bursting with a complex story.

Correction Number 2: Where you say "complex", you should say "Contradictory".

I don't like Miller's take on Bruce. I don't think Bruce is a raving psychopath.

And this is the funniest of all. Weren'tyou defending source material, after all? Establishing differences between what the character in fact is and the idea that everybody have in their heads?

Your big enough to understand how many contradictions and diverse interpretations exist in the vast Batman mythos, and thus we can't argue what's right and wrong in the whole series... but we can argue what's contradictory or not in a single rendition of the character and his world... and the Batman in my head matches pretty closely the Batman that Nolan has delivered us, one that was established since Batman Begins... a great mixture of the Dennis O'Neal Batman with the Frank Miller Batman (among bits and pieces of other characterizations).

And Robin is contradictory to THAT Batman.

If you want to argue the validity of the Robin character IN COMICS, let me just say that I don't even care for the existence of the character... just their relationship. Because the presence of Robin does to Batman and his surroundings what Harley Quinn does to the Joker and his surroundings..... it takes away much of the potence, of the threatening aspect... it makes him fallible, and it makes us questions his motives for having such relationship.

In other words... we can see the true intentions of bringing that character... and they're uncalled for. I don't want a relatable and less obssesed character.... or a side-kick that's meant to be killed and replaced (REPLACED!!!! LIKE IF BRUCE DIDN'T LEARN THE LESSON THE FIRST TIME!!!!) over and over again, just to have new sources of redundant guilt over Bruce. That's uncalled for.

If the reasons for the very existence of a character are stupid, that character itself is... you know.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

^That's a valid argument. It's a tough call for me to even suggest Robin in the Nolan films, but I'm concerned with the narrative arc of the character. Robin is important to the character, but I can see where you are coming from.

 

[The Guard]

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.

And Batman began as a Superman clone. What a character began as pales in comparison to what they can be. Dick Grayson/Robin has immense potential, and unlocks immense potential in Bruce Wayne/Batman's character.

Am to understand that the current argument is "Robin inherently makes Batman less dark"? That need not be the case at all. Batman was already becoming less dark when he was introduced. If anything, an intelligently written Robin illuminates just how far gone Bruce is. It further humanizes Bruce Wayne in that it forces him to confront emotions and situations he would otherwise not. It forces him into fatherhood, brotherhood, etc. Past that, the introduction of Dick Grayson adds layers and emotional development to the Batman mythology that otherwise, simply would not exist.

I don't think we need to see Robin in this franchise though, as so far, Nolan's barely been able to flesh out Alfred, Bruce, and Gordon, let alone Dick Grayson in one film. If Grayson was introduced, I'd be happy just to see Bruce recognizing the similarites between himself and this young man, to see Grayson helping him in his mission once, without Batman's permission, and to see the idea that Batman recognizes that he's not alone, that he may well take on a partner at some point. We don't even need to actually see Robin come into being.

That would have worked a lot better if Nolan hadn't killed off Two-Face.

 

[StorminNorman]

And this is the funniest of all. Weren'tyou defending source material, after all? Establishing differences between what the character in fact is and the idea that everybody have in their heads?

Your big enough to understand how many contradictions and diverse interpretations exist in the vast Batman mythos, and thus we can't argue what's right and wrong in the whole series... but we can argue what's contradictory or not in a single rendition of the character and his world... and the Batman in my head matches pretty closely the Batman that Nolan has delivered us, one that was established since Batman Begins... a great mixture of the Dennis O'Neal Batman with the Frank Miller Batman (among bits and pieces of other characterizations).

And Robin is contradictory to THAT Batman.

Except that Dennis O'Neal and Frank Miller also used Robin

Jeph Loeb, whose works are cited MOST often as influence on Nolan's movies, implemented Robin flawlessly. In fact Christian Bale loves that book! Again, if these very minds that you have stated as influence for this Batman has had a Robin sidekick, doesn't that solidify Robin being deserving of this role.

If you want to argue the validity of the Robin character IN COMICS, let me just say that I don't even care for the existence of the character... just their relationship. Because the presence of Robin does to Batman and his surroundings what Harley Quinn does to the Joker and his surroundings..... it takes away much of the potence, of the threatening aspect... it makes him fallible, and it makes us questions his motives for having such relationship.

Which is why it should only be used if it can be explained and written well. Robin, as has been shown, can be written well. The relationship can be written well. It can be explained well.

In other words... we can see the true intentions of bringing that character... and they're uncalled for. I don't want a relatable and less obssesed character.... or a side-kick that's meant to be killed and replaced (REPLACED!!!! LIKE IF BRUCE DIDN'T LEARN THE LESSON THE FIRST TIME!!!!) over and over again, just to have new sources of redundant guilt over Bruce. That's uncalled for.

If the reasons for the very existence of a character are stupid, that character itself is... you know.

The true intention of bringing the character is the relationship between the two characters, the relationship and connection Bruce shares with no other single character in the Batman mythos. I don't think we should see multiple Robins, but we do need to see Dick Grayson. We need to see Bruce taking on the job of fathering a child very much like himself. We need to see this in order to get the complete Bruce package. The character of Bruce Wanye is not complete without Dick Grayson. Its as simple as that.

 

[Melkay]

Yes, Robin was introduced to make Batman appeal to a younger audience. Sadly, nobody seems able to explain why this means Robin is not a valuable character.

It was faulty logic. That was the sole reason of having Robin into the story. It was uncalled for, and despite the character's own merits, his relationship to Bruce was pretty forced. It reamings forced until now, creating huge divisions of characterizations between different authors and different stories. Do you care to explain why sometimes Batman works alone and why sometimes he works with Dick*? If he has a side-kick, why not always work with him?

Because many authors don't even consider him to be a valuable element of the story, and sometimes even get rid of him, without further explanation, while on other moments they try to integrate him to the story... succesfully or not.

(or Todd, Tim, Barbara, Huntress, and the whole plethora of side-kicks made to capitalize on one's character faulty logic)

Batman was created for the sole purpose of capitalizing on the popularity of Superman. Should we stop making Batman movies because the motives for his creation were not purely creative? No? Then why is the motivation behind Robin's creation relevant to his inclusion?

Oh no, Batman's origins were purely created. They took a concept and tried to alter it and enrich it until they had a character of their own.
Robin is such a character, but his relationship to Batman is largely taken for granted, and it had no creative motives behind it... just plain and simple market logic. POOR market logic for that matter.

I always wondered about this: in what universe do you live where there is an "Obvious gay subtext" with regards to a child and a single parental guardian?

When the single parental guardian grants the protegé's whims, without any good reason for it... then the mind wanders, trying to find a good justification.
In other words, when one adult guy acts with a young boy like if he's not himself, something he wouldn't do with anybody else... well, we live in the same world. Is it the right approach? No. But it's the one that comes to mind... and so MANY people can't be homophobic, can they? There's something odd with the story, because it's not well justified.

"Exactly" what? You said Batman works alone. You were wrong. If your problem is that Robin wears a costume, is a child, or any of these other complaints you've subsequently made, you should have said that to begin with, instead of saying that Robin can't be used because "Batman works alone," which is blatantly false.

No, I wasn't wrong. You were. Read my response to Norman above. There's not ONE Batman. There are many, especially due to contradictory decision like these... hopefully, we're only dealing here with the on CURRENT rendition of the character in films... and that rendition is primarily based in ONE specific and COHERENT approach to the character.... a Batman who works alone.

We've already been through this: something is only "out of character" if it cannot be explained within the confines of the character's personality. Since Batman's decision to include sidekicks can be--and has been--explained, it is not out of character.

I will patiently wait until you type that explanation, and try to match it coherently with other known elements of the character.

Wake me up when you're done.

No, not at all. Robin is singular in the fact that he is the only person who has chosen to adopt the sort of life Bruce has, without sacrificing his own humanity and his own happiness to do it--demonstrating that Bruce need not lapse into darkness as a consequence of being Batman. Alfred is not a substitute for this. No one is a substitute for this, because no one else fights the fight that Batman and Robin do.

LOL. That line is so interesting. Before arriving to my main point, please, clear these doubts for me...

1. How can Robin adopt Bruce's way of life WITHOUT sacrificing his own happiness in the process?
2. Didn't Dick break his bonds with Bruce to be himself? Didn't Barbara get crippled? Didn't Todd get killed (and resurrected, without a shed of humanity)?
3. Has Bruce sacrificiced his own humanity? Define humanity.
4. Wasn't you who said that Robin was there to ensure that Batman didn't lose himself into his own creation... that he didn't lose his own humanity? How could Batman sacrifice his humanity if he took Robin under his wing?

And here is my main point... Robin can be a very interesting character... but why does that ensures his relationship to Bruce? Bruce remains a guy who wouldn't be open to that kind of partnership, especially with a kid, and every Batman and Robin origin story HAS to acknowledge that and resolve it every time in a more akward way. Robin can be a great character, a representation of many things... but why would Bruce take him under his wing? For wht purpose? That doesn't make any sense.

Nightwing I don't have any problem with... the vigilante who works on his own and has a sort of gentlemen rivalry with Bats. But Robin - the side-kick -... no, I see many reasons for not having that in Nolan's films.

Who is this "real" Bruce Wayne? The one that has existed with at least eight different sidekicks for 68 years, upon whom all other derivations are based? Or the one in your head?

Again, we have come to the point where you are confusing the way Batman actually is with the way you would like him to be.

Again, read my response to Norman above. I can't repeat what I say everytime someone makes a predictable assumption on what I'm saying to construct a poorly thought counter-attack.
Thank you.

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

I can see the argument on both sides; it’s a difficult dilemma and Nolan is going to have to address it (if he hasn’t already). We have a character that materialized in the comics roughly the same time as Batman and has been an integral aspect behind the series. And on the other side we have seen how Robin in film and the comics has destroyed the essence of what makes Batman such a compelling character. I don’t think there is a clear-cut answer in this debate, but we need to consider how large of a role source material plays in adapting a story for the screen. Robin is a dividing issue, and personally I think he exists as a reminder of Bruce Wayne’s past. Ultimately it’s up to Nolan to decide where he wants to go with his characters. And so far it’s a Robinless series.

 

[Melkay]

But Robin has been an important and crucial part of the Batman mythology in every medium and every generation.

???

Batman No. 1 - No. 37..... no Robin.
Batman Year One.... no Robin.
Batman: The Long Halloween.... no Robin.
The Killing Joker... no Robin.

Batman '89... no Robin.
Batman Returns... no Robin.
Mask Of The Phantasm.... no Robin.
Most part of the original BTAS... no Robin.
Batman Begins... no Robin (except taht poor little kid who the robin-fans wanted to desperately to be the wonder boy)
The Dark Knight.... guess what? No Robin.


Even works so dissimilar as "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Hush" only worked with Robin because they had to acknowledge continuity, needed to plot to keep going or wanted the current artist to portray them... because they don't even have important spots on the plot, only appearing a few pages, or in the last issues of the story.

And I don't need to remind you the titles of the only three (3) films that had Robin in them.... because that would be low.

Every medium? Every generation? Not really. Luckily, Nolan is working on that right now.

Its not as if Robin was some creation of the 50's and never seen again (like the other members of the Bat-family), Robin is a cornerstone to Batman's story and removing it would be on the same level as taking away Alfred, Gordon, The Joker, of Catwoman.

Hahahaha, this is a great one... members of the Bat-family never seen again? Who? Which members are you talking about? All of them are there... and do I need to remind you all the times Robin (or a form of Robin, like in Batman Beyond) has been RECYCLED? All the several Robin incarnations?

They remove him all the time my friend, and you don't even notice it.

Robin is simply not a poor element. Read Dark Victory, watching Batman The Animated Series, check out the countless great Batman/Robin stories - it works.

If you take for granted Bruce's odd stance regarding his side-kicks and how their relationship is taken for granted... sure, it does work. However, they are far from being the cornerstones of the comics history. Like I said before, Robin does to Batman what sometimes Harley does to the Joker... they're excellent character themselves, but they weaken their respective partners because the association is way too forced upon the reader.

Which is why Dick has to be JUST as stubborn. Dick Grayson should be JUST as driven as Bruce was, JUST as determined.

Dick can be as stubborn as he wants, that doesn't mean he's going to 'soften' old Bruce. No matter the mertis of Dick as a character, that doesn't assure their relationship... in fact, I think you're just taking it for graned, just like it has been done in the comics for so many years.

Bruce would be forced to train Dick not to create a new weapon to unleash on the underworld but to prepare him for it.

Forced??? Thank your for making it so easy for me...

If written properly, Dick's path would not be in doubt - he would be fighting crime with Batman no matter if he is Robin or Batman's partner or not.

With this being the case, if Bruce actually wants to protect the kid he would have to train. Have to push him to his physical peak, make him ready for the crusade he is going through now.

How is Batman endangering a child's life if the child is going to do it anyway? If anything ignoring it and absolving himself of all responsibility (by not training Dick) would be far more dangerous.

Or.... Batman ties the kid up and delivers him to the police, so they can put him in some juvenile reformatory. Problem solved. He has to lock bigger threats in jail and the asylum all the time.

Here's a free lesson for you: There is no 'written properly' when the premise is flawed. It's like opening a locked vault with a crowbar... you can try and try, and it won't budge.

Now your being purposefully dense. The money is important to Bruce's creation (just helpful), where he trained doesn't matter (it just makes for a good story) - what does was a boy saw his parents killed in front of him and he's hurt and mad and dedicated to right that in any way he can, so he trains and he prepares and he unleashes himself on the criminals of Gotham.

Thats what Bruce did. Thats what Dick does. They are kindred spirits.
[/font][/color]

Hhohoho, wow.... you have just redefined the term "Selective Argumentation"... bringing it to a level that not even the most heartless lawyers can.

The money, the training... everything it's as important to Bruce as everything else. It's what really sets him apart from Brian Douglass and his fake batmen gang. How many kids do you think have their parents killed every generation in front of their eyes? And how many turn into efficient vigilantes? How many?

Besides, his time in the League of Shadows was as integral to Bruce as anything else, because it formed his psychology into a man that was ready to become Batman. Without his training... not only physical, but also pyschological... Batman wouldn't have ever been.

Next time you don't know what to come up with, just ignore me and debate with someone else... because your selectiveness was so poor and obvious that it made my eyes hurt in the face of your poor understanding of the character.

Spare me the embarassment next time.

Alfred has already proven to be unable to stop Bruce or to make Bruce reconsider - Bruce was going to turn himself in no matter what Alfred said, he disregarded Alfred's fears in Batman Begins. Dick Grayson is needed in Bruce's life. Now if its this film or not, thats up for debate.

Up for debate? You may mean "up for someone to explain it to me, since I cannot see how obvious it is". But since not even Nolan could, I guess I can't do it myself.

Let me try, however... if Alfred doesn't have full powers of persuasion over Bruce, what makes you think a strange boy can?

....

...

I'll wait patiently for this answer too.

Again, this is based off the faulty and stupid idea that Bruce Wayne would force Dick into service.

Just granting him the training and the permission to work with him is enough to put Robin in harm's way. And not only Robin's life, but also the criminals that Robin would have to fight, because he's not skillful enough to save all of them, or tough enough to bear the guilt of their deaths on his soul.

Keep in mind the juvenile reformatory. Keep it in mind. It's the best way.

 

[Mindreaper21]

There is absolutely no need for Robin at all. Batman is badass on his own. Besides, Batman has enough problems that he needs to fix; he doesn't need to be taking care of some little snot-nosed brat.

 

[Two-Face]

There is absolutely no need for Robin at all. Batman is badass on his own. Besides, Batman has enough problems that he needs to fix; he doesn't need to be taking care of some little snot-nosed brat.

I agree and it will be out of place for Nolan brothers, as I said a post before:

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.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I can't see Robin being used, but maybe an adaption of Nightwing would work. Just have him as a fellow mysterious vigilante who seems to be taking things too far. Batman takes an interest in him and spots him doing his thing one night and sees the potential but is also wary of his violent streak.

 

[LexCorp]

I would think that there is not enough room in this series for Robin. If they spent that much time with Bats getting his origins right they would need to do the same with Robin. They can not jsut chuck in another "superhero" without going into the details they did with Bats.

 

[regwec]

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,

No it doesn't. You would have to be massively sheltered and naive to think of "TDK" as anything other than high fantasy.

if you add this kind of phony characters like Robin or mr Freeze it will ruin all the masterpiece Nolan did so far

Actually, none of the characters seen in BB or TDK were factual.

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.

Superficially mis-matched team-ups have always been popular and effective in lfiction, from "Gilgamesh" to "48 Hrs". .

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea i don't think people can argue against Robin with the ol' realism schtick.

You could say at this point in time(Batman guilt ridden over Rachel and Harvey, Gothams most wanted) it wouldn't be right for him to take on a young boy as his side kick. I would agree with that.

 

[regwec]

Except that Batman ends TDK as an orphan on the run. Dick Grayson is also an orphan on the run.