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

[LexCorp]

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.

Indeed

I mean Batman at the end TDK is even more of an outcast to everyone now and completely on the run. Where woudl they have time to fit Robin in with that.

 

[Saint]

It was faulty logic. That was the sole reason of having Robin into the story.

So what? You still haven't explained why this is relevant. The reason for his creation is irrelevant; what matters is what he has become since then.

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?

I'll give you a hint about human beings: they are not static. A human being will long for company one moment and demand solitude the next. Batman's denial over his own need for a support group has been a part of the comics for a long time.

Oh no, Batman's origins were purely created.

No, they were not. At all. I just explained this to you. National Comics hired Bob Kane to create another superhero character because they were having such success with Superman. Batman's creation was no more "pure' than Robin's. It was a marketing decision, period.

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.

Yeah, uh... sorry, I just don't see where this magically leads to gay subtext.

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.

Except, he doesn't. Were you not reading? He already works with Alfred, Gordon, Dent, and Fox. You said Robin should not be included because this Batman works alone. You were wrong. Again, I will try to explain if your problem is that he would not work with a child, would not work with another person in a costume, well, then that is a different argument and you should have said that. But you didn't. You said "Batman works alone," which is false.

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

I don't really need to. Surely you've read Dark Victory. But if that's not enough, well, let's see how concise I can make this: Batman felt trapped. He had on his hands a boy who would not be dissuaded from a particular path, whose anger was going to cause him to self-destruct and whose potential was so frightening that it need to be tempered and guided. Batman felt he could give the boy closure by involving him in a very limited capacity with the capture of his parents killer. This proved to be a mistake, as this introduced Dick to a sort of life that he now wanted for himself. He wanted to fight crime. There was no way to stop him, no way to dissuade him, and Bruce was left with two options: either Dick goes out there and does this on his own, or he does this with Batman watching over him and keeping him safe. Things got out of hand. It was an insane decision to make, but then, Bruce makes insane decisions as a matter of course. Bruce tries to be the ultimate rational thinker, and certainly his reason would preclude him from participating in something so insane... but the truth is, he isn't as ruled by reason as he'd like to be. Emotion gets into his decisions and it makes him crazy. It makes him dress up like a bat.

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)?

Sure. None of this precludes Dick Grayson from being happy, though. Just because bad things happen doesn't mean you let them swallow you whole. That's the critical difference between Batman and Robin. They both suffer through tragedy, but Dick, unlike Batman, isn't ruled by his tragedies. He allows himself happiness and even a semblance of normalcy, and that's the message Bruce needs to be sent: that this can be done without giving up the mission.

3. Has Bruce sacrificiced his own humanity? Define humanity.

Don't be ridiculous: the cornerstone of Batman is the question of whether or not the mission will cost Bruce his soul. I can't believe you even asked this.

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?

I don't think I understand this question.

 

[Saint]

I'm going to quote my earlier suggestion for fitting Robin into the existing Nolan universe.

Anyways, I would prefer to avoid tampering too much with his background. A lot of the proposals for including Robin have been extremely revisionary (many based on Dick, before meeting Bruce, going out and doing the vigilante thing on his own). Obviously this is an attempt to work around some of the more unbelievable aspects of Robin, but I think we can do this in a less revisionary way.

Yes, being a circus acrobat isn't going to prepare him for combat, but then, we don't necessarily need him to prepared for combat. I don't think there are many ways to make this work in the atmosphere of these films, but I think the most obvious way is Bruce to use combat training (among other things) as a method of channelling Dick's anger, whereas Bruce, at that age, had nothing and end up lost. I think it's important that the idea of a sidekick never occur to Bruce. It would just be a opportunity to vent and focus on something useful. So, that's how we start to prepare Dick for combat.

After Dick (who let's say is fifteen or sixteen) finds out Bruce is Batman, obviously Dick has ideas. Dick goes out on his own to try and put what he's learned to use. Of course, this is not acceptable and Batman wants to put a stop to it. When conventional solutions don't work, Bruce decides the solution may be to offer Dick the closure Bruce didn't have: bring in Zucco. I think the idea here would be to involve Dick in the investigation, so that when Zucco goes down, Dick feels like he's accomplished something and can let it go. Leading up to this, we'd see a Dick's training. I think that while combat is essential, it would be useful to focus on investigative technique, surveillance techniques. We perhaps see Dick doing stuff like Bruce's hobo-disguise eaves-dropping in Begins; utterly dangerless tasks that involve him in the effort to get Zucco. Not only are these useful in nailing Zucco without putting Dick in any danger, but they also create a precedent for Robin to be focused on support, not combat. I'm sort of torn as to whether or not Batman would actually involve him in the physical capture of Zucco, as he did in DV. Bruce might, or, if not, Dick would get involved against Bruce's will. If Bruce does allow it, that solves the costume problem: even though it's supposed to be a one-time deal, Dick has to be protected, so Bruce might put something together for him. Perhaps he cannibalizes his old suits to build one for Dick and slaps a flack jacket on top (for the tunic). Obviously it wouldn't be coloured red yet, nor would it have the R on it, and maybe not even a cape. It would be purely functional.

Anyways, it's tricky. If Bruce allows Dick to participate in the physical takedown, it has to be designed so that Bruce has solid reason to believe Dick will be safe. If he doesn't, Dick will have to find another way to get a costume, and more importantly, Bruce's plan to give Dick closure is a little weaker. Either way, when Zucco is down, it's over as far as bruce is concerned.

Naturally, the plan backfires, and Dick isn't satisfied to put it away and go back to normalcy. We're near the end of the film now, so the next part is easy: Dick, having reworked the armour into a Robin costume, gets involved in the climax without Bruce's consent. They work together because there's no option at this point, with Dick already involved.

When all is said and done, it might be better to leave Dick's future as Robin uncertain. I don't know that it would work for bruce to say "You helped me beat the Riddler, welcome aboard!" Bruce might realize that he's not going to be able to dissuade Dick, so maybe Bruce simply allows Dick the opportunity to prove himself. Not immediately in the field, but through whatever tests or methods Batman might have ahead; a long, gruelling process where, knowing Dick is going to get out on his own eventually, Bruce does his best to build a better version of himself in Dick. He can't stop him at this point, so he opts to work to keep him alive.

Alternative, it could simply be ambiguous: you have bruce grimly contemplating the matter at the end of the film; understanding the insanity of it, but unsure of a way to really dissuade Dick. Some of the audience go home assuming that this is the end of Robin. others, the opposite.

Bottom line, it's never going to be cut and dry, where you can say "Batman definitely did the right thing." It shouldn't be. Conflict is what fiction is about. Hard decisions, sometimes insane ones. It's a challenge to make this one workable, but I don't think it's insurmountable.

Ah, one thing I forgot: I think it's important to establish Dick as an extremely gifted child. Not just physically, but mentally as well. Like the Battle School students in Ender's Game (though not to that degree, as those damn kids were smarter than the adults, who were themselves smart).

 

[Nightwatcher11]

I do believe after this film, Batman 3, that we should take a different look at Batman. Otherwise the whole Batman on his own may become old. I wouldn't mind him adopting Dick but I dunno if I'd wanna see a Robin yet in a film. But I'm not shooting the idea away that Robin would not work and should not happen. But in Batman 3, it wouldn't make sense to me why they would add him in there, for the reasons Two Face stated. (Batman still has to get his act to get together and clear his name as a hero)

 

[StorminNorman]

???

Batman No. 1 - No. 37..... no Robin.

Actually there was Robin.

Batman Year One.... no Robin.

So?

Batman: The Long Halloween.... no Robin.

The Long Halloween is truly a two-part story with Robin being brought in the second half, but even if this wasn't the case it still wouldn't matter.

The Killing Joker... no Robin.

So?

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.

You clearly did not comprehend what I said. Every medium, every incarnation (up to Nolan's Batman to date) has used Robin and Robin has been an important part to the story. That does not mean Robin was in every single movie, in every single comic, in every single cartoon episode - that is not what "being in every medium" means, I did not say he was in every Batman story.

Robin was not in Batman 89 or Batman Returns, but he was in the direct sequel Batman Forever.

He was not in Mask of the Phantasm, but he was apart of the universe Timm/Dini made. He was in MOST of the Batman:TAS Episode in some form.

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.

The Dark Knight Returns didn't simply ACKNOWLEDGE Robin, Frank Miller ADDED a new Robin. Also the idea that Miller's Robin in The Dark Knight Returns didn't play an important role in the plot mean you need to re-read that comic.

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.

Again you are simply wrong. Every medium: comic, print, radio, tv, film, musical, fan fiction, cave painting, spoof, etc. has featured Robin. This is not a point up for discussion, this is irrefutable fact. Every generation of Batman - Golden Age, Silver Age, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, modern Batman has used Robin.

The only generation of medium, even, that has not used Robin is this current Nolan universe - and that is not because Robin doesn't fit this universe, only that he does not fit the story yet. Batman is still finding himself.

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?

Batwoman (as she was originally conceived), Bat-Girl (as she was originally conceived), Aunt Hariett.

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

Robin has never been removed from Batman's mythology. Now, again, Robin isn't in every single Batman story - and he doesn't need to be, the character is interesting enough and developed enough to have his own missions, but he is ALWAYS present in Batman's life - acknowledged or not.

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.

I disagree about Harley as well, but thats another debate for another thread. Robin's association is not forced at all, in fact when in the hands of a skilled writer (like Jeph Loeb or Bruce Timm) it flows easily and brilliantly.

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.

You think Bruce Wayne seeing a troubled teen who just lost his parents who wants to desperately do whatever he can to fight criminals like the ones that killed his parents WOULDN'T resonate with Bruce? Wouldn't 'soften' Bruce? Then I think you are taking the characterization of Batman for granted - just like misguided anti-Robin fanboys have been for so many years.

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

Yes forced - not physically, but emotionally.

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.

If you really think that Batman would throw a kid who just lost his parents in front of his eyes in jail for doing essentially EXACTLY what Bruce himself did as a boy - you don't understand the character of Bruce Wayne. Its simple as that. This is the most absurd and ridiculous idea I have read about Bruce Wayne's character in a long time on this board.

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.

Of course there is no "written properly" when the premise is flawed, Robin is not a flawed premise - as has been proven time and time again. Again, have you read Dark Victory?

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?

But Dick Grayson is not starting from scratch either. He is not starting from some run down apart - he is LIVING with Batman and becomes a PARTNER to Batman, not a peer. Dick Grayson already has a great amount of training from his Circus days - while there are a small but significant number of kids that have had their parents taken away from them in front of their eyes, the number of kids with extensive physical and mental training (like the sort that is needed to jump from swing to swing several feet in the air) limit it down substantially.

Again the money, the training - Robin would have those very same assets by simply being the ward of Bruce Wayne.

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.

Except that Bruce has become Batman without the help of the League of Shadows in every other incarnation of the character. But again, there is no reason that Bruce - who has conceded that this kid is just as dedicated, just as stubborn as he was and is likely to get himself killed if he does not know what he is doing - can not play the same role Ducard played to him.

You know...without that whole trying to kill him thing...well unless Frank Miller writes it.

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.

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.

Because thats what people do. You obviously have no experience in psychology or well...with people at all. Certain people impact individuals different than others. Again, your son teaches you things that your father never could. Bruce sees through Dick what he can never, ever, ever see in Alfred - himself.

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.

Neither Batman nor Robin should be in a position to have to feel guilty about the death of criminals - this is one area where Nolan has not captured Batman. But this is also exactly why Bruce would HAVE to be apart of Dick's life - Dick is going to follow this path anyway, without Bruce he will certainly not be trained enough to fight criminals or survive doing what Bruce does.

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

And its also something Bruce wouldn't let happen to Dick.

 

[StorminNorman]

If the theme of BB3 is Redemption, then what better way to demonstrate this than Bruce Wayne raising Dick Grayson?

 

[The Batman]

I have honestly heard NO GOOD reason for why Robin shouldnt be in a film...and its funny, because if nolan said tommorow that hes putting robin in the franchise, bashers would start kissing the ground he walked on AGAIN

I have, however, seen many reasons for why I'm glad some fanboys arent in charge

 

[Marx]

If the theme of BB3 is Redemption, then what better way to demonstrate this than Bruce Wayne raising Dick Grayson?

Batman is the one who needs redemption in the eyes of the public, not Bruce Wayne.

 

[StorminNorman]

Batman is the one who needs redemption in the eyes of the public, not Bruce Wayne.

I disagree. Bruce Wayne is widely seen as a complete disgrace to the legacy his parents left behind. "The apple has fallen far from the tree".

 

[Marx]

I disagree. Bruce Wayne is widely seen as a complete disgrace to the legacy his parents left behind. "The apple has fallen far from the tree".

That's true, but Batman is now seen as a murderer in the eyes of the public.

 

[GlasgowBat]

Actually there was Robin.

The only generation of medium, even, that has not used Robin is this current Nolan universe - and that is not because Robin doesn't fit this universe, only that he does not fit the story yet. Batman is still finding himself. quote]


not true. he hasn't been in this series because nolan and bale have both stated that they don't want him incorporated. until it's stated otherwise, it would only be accurate to assume that this is still their postion.

 

[regwec]

That's a complex question, really, because Bruce spent much of TDK staking his own reputation on that of Harvey Dent. The public's view of Wayne would therefore be largely shaped by the degree of success with which he and Jim Gordon were able to suppress the truth of Dent's fate.

All the same, Wayne did appear to elope with a ballerina, and selfishly flee for cover when The Joker's madmen crashed his party.

 

[regwec]

I have honestly heard NO GOOD reason for why Robin shouldnt be in a film...and its funny, because if nolan said tommorow that hes putting robin in the franchise, bashers would start kissing the ground he walked on AGAIN

I have, however, seen many reasons for why I'm glad some fanboys arent in charge

You're absolutely right. The second that Chris Nolan cast an actor in the role of Dick Grayson, the usual suspects would be lauding the decision as inspired, and derriding the lack of Robin in previous movies as "stpd".

Isn't it interesting that it is always the most opinionated and narrow minded "fans" who profess to know exactly what Chris Nolan's views are on every given subject- even after they have been proven wrong time and time again?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's true, but Batman is now seen as a murderer in the eyes of the public.

Yes, so both characters need redemption in the eyes of the public.

I smell theme!

not true. he hasn't been in this series because nolan and bale have both stated that they don't want him incorporated. until it's stated otherwise, it would only be accurate to assume that this is still their postion.

I have not seen where Nolan is completely opposed to Robin, though Bale has made his statements (though, again, Dark Victory is one of his favorite comics). But even this, using "Robin not being in this franchise to date means he doesn't belong in this franchise" is an inheritly flawed concept because Batman isn't ready for Robin.

 

[The Batman]

You're absolutely right. The second that Chris Nolan cast an actor in the role of Dick Grayson, the usual suspects would be lauding the decision as inspired, and derriding the lack of Robin in previous movies as "stpd".

Isn't it interesting that it is always the most opinionated and narrow minded "fans" who profess to know exactly what Chris Nolan's views are on every given subject- even after they have been proven wrong time and time again?

They're the ones who think that Nolans "Realism" is the same as "Blair witch style", even though Nolan vision is the same style richard donner used in his superman movies...

 

[Saint]

The concept of Nolan's realism in the head of the average SHHer is somewhat vexing. I had the same people who told me that grey body armour would be "unrealistic" theorizing that the new cape function Hemming hinted at would be camouflage. Grey? Too unrealistic. Cloak of invisibility? Perfect fit!

It seems that, for some, the relationship functions as such:

Too unrealistic = things you don't like.

Acceptably realistic = things you do like.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I'm not completely against the introduction of Robin. But I think he should only be brought into this Bat-verse if absolutely needed and if the circumstances are right. At this moment in time (Batman being on the run, guilt ridden) I don't think it would be a good time for Bruce to take him on. Maybe once he has redeemed himself and recovered from the devastation of TDK they could bring in Robin. But i just don't see it working yet.

 

[StorminNorman]

Jeph Loeb seems to think that a guilt ridden and unpopular Batman is exactly when Robin should be introduced.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Jeph Loeb seems to think that a guilt ridden and unpopular Batman is exactly when Robin should be introduced.

Hmmmm. Well if Loeb says it's ok, it must be!!

Na seriously I do see where you are coming from, maybe some added responsibility for Bruce would take his mind off the loss of Rachel and give him another real purpose. But i'm afraid the general audience would be thinking "So, he is now the number one fugitive in Gotham, fighting for his life everytime he puts on the Bat-suit. What a great time to involve a youngster!" Do you get what i mean? We as Bat fans might understand it but I don't think the average cinema goer will, they'd probs think it is a stupid situation to introduce a teenage side-kick into.

 

[CFE]

I appreciate Robin as both a character and essential cornerstone of Batman's mythology.

That said, I'm fine with him being absent in Nolan's take as of right now.

Focus on developing Batman as the legend he is to become. Wayne needs at least one more movie's worth of seasoning. Then, you can mention the Flying Graysons in the 4th/5th film and take it on from there.

Because as it stands, the inclusion of Robin would feel like a gimmick to sell tickets at this point. The same thing happened with "Batman Forever." And if Robin is added into a third-Nolan film, it'll follow too closely to the trajectory of the previous franchise.

Give Batman his solo-threequel. Don't pull a "Forever" or "Blade: Trinity" and hastily inject new sidekicks just for the sake of...whatever.

As if Batman or Blade aren't interesting enough. They're the reasons we went to those films...not Robin or the Nightstalkers...

So for now...Grayson can stay in that cradle Nolan mentioned.

 

[The Batman]

The concept of Nolan's realism in the head of the average SHHer is somewhat vexing. I had the same people who told me that grey body armour would be "unrealistic" theorizing that the new cape function Hemming hinted at would be camouflage. Grey? Too unrealistic. Cloak of invisibility? Perfect fit!

It seems that, for some, the relationship functions as such:

Too unrealistic = things you don't like.

Acceptably realistic = things you do like.

its all it is, really. I remember starting a thread talking about what nolan's realism actually is, and having it deleted and restarted as a debate thread because most people couldnt handle having their parade rained on....as if nolan's realism could be interpreted

 

[regwec]

I remember being told that The Joker would certainly not be wearing purple in "Nolan's grounded gritty realism world".

Oddly, the posters in question failed to subsequently complain that Nolan had "sold out" or betrayed his vision.

I want to see Chris Nolan make a Batman movie featuring a giant penny, a cyber-T-Rex, a Superman cameo, Matt Hagen, Lazarus pits, and Etrigan. And I want to still be told by the same people that Robin or a fabric Batsuit would be unthinkable in the same, believable universe.

 

[Saint]

I remember being told that The Joker would certainly not be wearing purple in "Nolan's grounded gritty realism world".

Yes, that was a popular sentiment.

Oddly, the posters in question failed to subsequently complain that Nolan had "sold out" or betrayed his vision.

Naturally.

I want to see Chris Nolan make a Batman movie featuring a giant penny, a cyber-T-Rex, a Superman cameo, Matt Hagen, Lazarus pits, and Etrigan. And I want to still be told by the same people that Robin or a fabric Batsuit would be unthinkable in the same, believable universe.

The hilarious part is that you and I both know that is precisely what would happen.

 

[COMPO]

i don't think the next film could have robin in, i mean batman's on the run everyone in Gotham hates him, he needs to overcome and become a legend i think before he can get a set of disciples.

I'd have robin come in the fourth film and have him as mentioned be an amateur vigilante and batman taking him under his wing.

 

[El Payaso]

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 rudimentary examination shows that Batman is not about fatherhood or exposing underages to danger.

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.

Explanations can be made. The quality of them is what worries me the most. Friendship between Batman and Superman can be explained or his participation in Justice League; it doesn't make it a good idea to have in the franchise though.

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.

The decision is made. The main actor has put his foot down too. Acceptation of that should follow.

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.

Batman has been able to work with partners: Gordon, Rachel, Dent, Alfred. None of them underaged or dressed in red and yellow.

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

The fact remains; Batman doesn't "need help." At least on the battle field.

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.

That also can be Rachel or Catwoman or Thalia. All of them a better reason than being the father of a child who Batman himself exposes to deadly perils.