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

[Two-Face=Badass]

Any rudimentary examination shows that
The fact remains; Batman doesn't "need help." At least on the battle field.

The point of that quote is that it was wrong, Batman needed help the whole time in the film and still failed because he had no one in the field to stop crucial things from happening.

I gotta say, people CAN make valid arguments to why Robin should not be in the third film (not right time etc) but at the moment all I'm seeing is pure ignorance of the character because they want "Teh Darkness11!1". Robin as someone previously said has been in every format Batman has been in and explained brilliantly in most, so people need to stop wasting their time trying to prove the obviously wrong point that Robin contradicts Batman (hint: It only contradicts the one you want him to be) and instead try to come up with a good argument against him being included.

 

[The Joker]

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

YES! I remember having a huuuuuuge debate with someone over that. This person was adamant that Joker didn't need his purple suit, that it wouldn't fit into Nolan's world, just like Scarecrow's full body costume didn't.

I wish I could remember who that person had been....

 

[Ace of Knaves]

YES! I remember having a huuuuuuge debate with someone over that. This person was adamant that Joker didn't need his purple suit, that it wouldn't fit into Nolan's world, just like Scarecrow's full body costume didn't.

I wish I could remember who that person had been....

It was me!!! HOOOHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[El Payaso]

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.

es; Robin's importance on Batman's history is about the amiount of time he has been there, not how good the character is.

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?

In fact there's the "Adapting Robin" thread about fans' ideas of adappting the character. That doesn't consider the possibility that Nolan's (and Bale's) mind about Robin could magically change.

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 think that sentence shows that Bale knows that what might work in comics might not be a good idea for the big screen, specially in a serious franchise.

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.

But in fact Robin has been taken away from Batman movies; coincidentally the very best of them.

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.

It might work in comics, I reckon.

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.

So now every orphan kid determined to fight crime should be adopted by Batman or he would come responsible of what become of the boy?

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.

Or any other character that is written to be able to convince Batman of things. Not necessarily Robin.

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

Or that he would, merely because the kid is stubborn, allow him to do his way and risk his life being a minor.

I think if that's possible, if that level of stubborness is possible and real, Dick's parents never achieved to make him eat his vegetables unless Dick decided so.

 

[Saint]

Any rudimentary examination shows that Batman is not about fatherhood

Batman is about being human. A critical component of the human condition is family, which is why Batman has always had a surrogate one--sons included. Another critical component of the human condition is our nigh-universal desire for something of ourselves to endure beyond our deaths. This is an evolutionary imperative for the survival of the species, but has grown into something more abstract in human society, that being legacy. For the average person, this is about children. For Batman, it's a little bit different.

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.

Sure--but then, Superman isn't a cornerstone of the Batman mythology. Certainly, making Robin work in an atmosphere such as this is not simple, by any means. It is a risk. For me, it's a risk worth taking.

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

Why? Simply because something is beyond one's control does not mean discussion (and indeed, complaint) is unnecessary or unreasonable. Indeed, it is the only avenue remaining. The "Too bad, accept it" school of thought is no more enlightened than the ***** and moan school. Neither is particularly valuable and neither is more healthy, as *****ing and moaning is simply the procedure some use to deal with the problem.

 

[StorminNorman]

But in fact Robin has been taken away from Batman movies; coincidentally the very best of them.

It is a coincidence.

So now every orphan kid determined to fight crime should be adopted by Batman or he would come responsible of what become of the boy?

Every orphan kid whose life crosses into Batman's life...so Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, etc.

Or any other character that is written to be able to convince Batman of things. Not necessarily Robin.

Robin has a relationship with Batman that no one else has - its exclusive to the father-son relationship. Again, your wife can't teach you the same lessons your son does.

Or that he would, merely because the kid is stubborn, allow him to do his way and risk his life being a minor.

Considering he did the exact same thing, yes, I think Bruce is more likely to be sympathetic than simply dismissing the kid. Especially if he shows promise which, as a Circus raised boy destined to become a hero like Batman, he would.

I think if that's possible, if that level of stubborness is possible and real, Dick's parents never achieved to make him eat his vegetables unless Dick decided so.

If a child is dedicated to never eat vegetables, than he will never eat vegetables. Parents can't force a child's mouth open and shove green beans in and then tickles his throat so it goes down, yum yum. They could punish him, take away everything he enjoys, but if Dick is determined to never eat green beans no matter the consequences, he's not going to.

The same principal can be applied to fighting crime.

 

[El Payaso]

The point of that quote is that it was wrong, Batman needed help the whole time in the film and still failed because he had no one in the field to stop crucial things from happening.

In fact the whole Police Dept wasn't able to stop Joker so I don't see how an underage is so vitally needed.

But then again, Batman stopped Joker's masterplan with the sonar device. He rescued the hostages and stopped the SWAT team himself. He also saved Harvey Dent from being killed by the Joker while he was being transported.

I gotta say, people CAN make valid arguments to why Robin should not be in the third film (not right time etc) but at the moment all I'm seeing is pure ignorance of the character because they want "Teh Darkness11!1".

Being Batman a dark character the fact that you spell it funny doesn't make a lot for the argument.

Robin as someone previously said has been in every format Batman has been in and explained brilliantly in most,

Movies not being one of them.

so people need to stop wasting their time trying to prove the obviously wrong point that Robin contradicts Batman (hint: It only contradicts the one you want him to be) and instead try to come up with a good argument against him being included.

He contradicts the core concept of the dark loner crusader Batman is. An underage in red and yellow suit contradicts visually the black figure of Batman specially in a serious toned movie.

That said, Batman has never been a character about fatherhood. And there's no way Bruce Wayne could adopt a minor. And there's no way Bruce could do it, then Batman is seen with Robin, and no one can put two and two together (Batman = Bruce; Robin = Dick). And there's no way the Police wouldn't be after Batman if he's seen with an underage exposing his life. The "he was determined so I had to do it" explanation would do little in Batman's favour. That said, Batman is now believed to be a murderer so adopting a child to expoose his life is not the best of ideas.

 

[david icke]

The thing about robin for me is that in Batman Begins they went to into great detail showing us the intense varied training Batman went through for 7yrs that enables him to survive on the streets. If they brought in Robin, fighting and surviving in the same circumstances, that level of belief I can bring to these Batman movies may dip for me, and negate all the good work they did in BB.
Robin, to work for me, would have to be brought in as some kind of wildcard, who was not out there with BM's permission, surviving by the skin of his teeth, due to the help of BM, or by pure dumb luck. If BM took him under his wing, and the time spent training him was to be imagined as taking place between one movie and the next, then , maybe, maybe, I would be able to accept him on the same level of belief as this Batman. Robin having been trained the same techniques of survival BM was, crash course style over a year or so.

 

[Saint]

The "It just won't work in movies" argument isn't particularly compelling. There is nothing added by the third dimension that inherently makes the concept unworkable. Far more ridiculous things have been done on film. Anything sold under the right conditions, and sold well enough, will function.

And there's no way Bruce could do it, then Batman is seen with Robin, and no one can put two and two together (Batman = Bruce; Robin = Dick).

Wait, what? How would anyone make that connection? Bruce Wayne has a ward, and Batman has an adolsecent sidekick... therefore Batman is Bruce Wayne? What? It could just as easily be any man and any boy in Gotham.

And there's no way Bruce Wayne could adopt a minor.

Sure he would. As I said earlier, emotion conflicts with Batman's better judgment pretty frequently. This includes empathy.

 

[StorminNorman]

But Robin has been training for almost his entire life.

 

[itsthebatman]

In fact the whole Police Dept wasn't able to stop Joker so I don't see how an underage is so vitally needed.

But then again, Batman stopped Joker's masterplan with the sonar device. He rescued the hostages and stopped the SWAT team himself. He also saved Harvey Dent from being killed by the Joker while he was being transported..

True, he wanted to kill Dent himself by pushing him off from a high building.

That said, Batman has never been a character about fatherhood. And there's no way Bruce Wayne could adopt a minor. And there's no way Bruce could do it, then Batman is seen with Robin, and no one can put two and two together (Batman = Bruce; Robin = Dick). And there's no way the Police wouldn't be after Batman if he's seen with an underage exposing his life. The "he was determined so I had to do it" explanation would do little in Batman's favour. That said, Batman is now believed to be a murderer so adopting a child to expoose his life is not the best of ideas.

I don't see how you can say this and believe it. You may not like the idea, but Batman has been, for much of his career, a surrogate father to a succession of orphaned boys. Hasn't he adopted Dick Grayson and Tim Drake? In 'Bruce Wayne: Murderer', didn't Dick ask him who his father was going to be if Bruce Wayne became a fugitive, and Bruce sagged?
As for this movie series, finish the trilogy with a film with Black Mask, Catwoman and Penguin, then have Batman swinging by a poster advertising the Flying Graysons. Nolan can then hand over to another director who may be better able to adapt the character, in his modern-day red-and-black costumed incarnation.

 

[Saint]

The unfortunate thing is that Nolan is just the sort of person needed to repair the damage done to the public (and fan) perception of Robin.

 

[itsthebatman]

The unfortunate thing is that Nolan is just the sort of person needed to repair the damage done to the public (and fan) perception of Robin.

If he wanted to, he could do a great job. If not, and forced into it (which I imagine WB would not be stupid enough to do), we could end up with another Venom. If his heart's not in it, leave it to someone who wants to do it properly (same with the Penguin, I suppose).

 

[david icke]

But Robin has been training for almost his entire life.

You're right, but how far would acrobatic skills get you on the streets without the proper attitude and psychological know how? 'This is not a dance.' comes to mind.
Not to mention brutal street fighting, getting to know Gotham.
I must admit, when i was typing that previous post, i shamefully forgot about the circus background, I suppose part of me was thinking of a new Robin for these movies, not necesarily tied up with the comics origin.

 

[Saint]

If he wanted to, he could do a great job. If not, and forced into it (which I imagine WB would not be stupid enough to do), we could end up with another Venom. If his heart's not in it, leave it to someone who wants to do it properly (same with the Penguin, I suppose).

Agreed.

As for Penguin, well, as I've said before... He must be the one Batman character I have absolutely zero interest in, so I won't miss him if he doesn't appear under Nolan. That said, I was somewhat confused when Nolan dismissed him. He seems aptly suited to the Nolan world. He's just a deformed crime boss. Oh well. I want to see Nolan do Bane.

 

[El Payaso]

Batman is about being human. A critical component of the human condition is family, which is why Batman has always had a surrogate one--sons included.

Every person in Gotham City is human. Batman is about something else. About becoming a symbol, a legend. Batman is about everything but having a normal life.

Another critical component of the human condition is our nigh-universal desire for something of ourselves to endure beyond our deaths. This is an evolutionary imperative for the survival of the species, but has grown into something more abstract in human society, that being legacy. For the average person, this is about children. For Batman, it's a little bit different.

Exactly. That's why Batman decided to become a symbol, not a cop with children that survive him.

That's why he was after inspiration, not funding a orphanage where determined children could be trained to fight crime as minors.

Sure--but then, Superman isn't a cornerstone of the Batman mythology.

Superman has put his own life in Batman's hands giving him Kryptonite. Superman has been quite important in the way Batman sees his own mission, contrasted with the way Superman does his own. The main merit for Robin being called "cornerstone" is the amount of time and issues the character has been there. Superman, for the case, has been as important even if he hasn't been there most of the time.

Why? Simply because something is beyond one's control does not mean discussion (and indeed, complaint) is unnecessary or unreasonable. Indeed, it is the only avenue remaining. The "Too bad, accept it" school of thought is no more enlightened than the ***** and moan school. Neither is particularly valuable and neither is more healthy, as *****ing and moaning is simply the procedure some use to deal with the problem.

I think I said that the "Adapting Robin" thread was one to discuss fans' ideas over adapting Robin that didn't consider that Nolan and Bale could suddenly change their minds about Robin.

It is a coincidence.

Amazing coincidences, how can we not love them? But Nolan and Bale seem to think there's more to it than just chance.

Every orphan kid whose life crosses into Batman's life...so Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, etc.

Then Batman is forced to consider all those kids that are the same as Dick, Jason and Tim that can't meet Batman personally because of chance. His next logic step would be the Wayne Orphanage for Determined Boys where they're trained to crime-fighting. Because Batman wouldn't let the possibility that some determined orphan could become a villiain or go astray for not being properly trained.

Robin has a relationship with Batman that no one else has - its exclusive to the father-son relationship. Again, your wife can't teach you the same lessons your son does.

That doesn't mean he should have one. Or we should give every superhero a son to teach them lessons no one else can.

For that matter sons can't teach you lessons your father can. But we're not keeping Thomas Wayne alive because of that.

Batman, as any other characters, can be defined by many valuable lessons from people around him the same as by many lessons he can't learn easily because there's not the right person at the right time.

Considering he did the exact same thing, yes, I think Bruce is more likely to be sympathetic than simply dismissing the kid. Especially if he shows promise which, as a Circus raised boy destined to become a hero like Batman, he would.

He might be sympathetic, but then again he can't become a father and modify his life because of that. Batman already knows that he's impeded from become a normal boyfriend no matter how in love he might be. Same applies to orphan boys he feels identified with.

If a child is dedicated to never eat vegetables, than he will never eat vegetables. Parents can't force a child's mouth open and shove green beans in and then tickles his throat so it goes down, yum yum. They could punish him, take away everything he enjoys, but if Dick is determined to never eat green beans no matter the consequences, he's not going to.

The same principal can be applied to fighting crime.

So most children in this world will never eat them. Now that's an amazing thing to hear.

 

[Crook]

Wait, what? How would anyone make that connection? Bruce Wayne has a ward, and Batman has an adolsecent sidekick... therefore Batman is Bruce Wayne? What? It could just as easily be any man and any boy in Gotham.

I believe the assumption is:

Acrobat family slaughter leaves orphan > news headlines > billionaire playboy takes on ward > news headlines > give or take a couple years Batman appears with young sidekick > news headlines > people put two and two together

If he wanted to, he could do a great job. If not, and forced into it (which I imagine WB would not be stupid enough to do), we could end up with another Venom. If his heart's not in it, leave it to someone who wants to do it properly (same with the Penguin, I suppose).

Yup. Nolan has the capability, but he himself needs to believe in the concept. If not, no biggie. He's not the only capable man for the job. Of course, we will no doubt have to wait quite a bit longer to see Robin done justice. If at all.

 

[Saint]

Acrobat family slaughter leaves orphan > news headlines > billionaire playboy takes on ward > news headlines > give or take a couple years Batman appears with young sidekick > news headlines > people put two and two together

I just don't see it. If David Bowie was in the Gotham news as adopting some boy, people wouldn't suddenly assume that Batman and Robin are David Bowie and son. The same is true of Wayne. Like I said, it could just as easily be any father and son in Gotham. There's no logical reason to make any connection--except perhaps that Wayne's boy is an acrobat, but that's still not enough.

 

[itsthebatman]

True, Saint, if Penguin didn't appear I wouldn't be shedding tears. Nolan's take on Bane, the man who comes to Gotham to literally break the Batman, would be awesome.

 

[Shemtov]

woudnt mind if in batman 4 (at the earliest) if they introduced a vigilante around batman's age in BB whose name is nightwing whom batman tries to discourage. it would be a subplot but a nod to robin fans

 

[Crook]

I just don't see it. If David Bowie was in the Gotham news as adopting some boy, people wouldn't suddenly assume that Batman and Robin are David Bowie and son. The same is true of Wayne. Like I said, it could just as easily be any father and son in Gotham. There's no logical reason to make any connection--except perhaps that Wayne's boy is an acrobat, but that's still not enough.

Given that their lives are splashed all over the news, it's not a stretch by any means. It's their histories that single them out. BOTH have a major motive to be out crimefighting. Their parents were killed in front of them. Bruce has the means of putting together an operation such as this.

It wouldn't be a big deal for Bruce, because he's had many years for the public to forget about his past. However the inclusion of Dick, and subsequently Robin, will surely dig up buried skeletons.

This is why I'm for a reinvention of Robin. I know how important he is to the mythos, but there are definitely some flaws I'd like to see fixed. The when/how he becomes Robin, particularly. And how Robin's image next to Batman is portrayed in the public's eye. Those are the two biggest factors for me.

 

[Saint]

Every person in Gotham City is human.

Is this supposed to be a counterargument?

Batman is about something else. About becoming a symbol, a legend. Batman is about everything but having a normal life.

I didn't say it was about having a normal life, I said Batman was about being human. This is expressed in an abnormal and extreme way because that makes for interesting fiction. Yes, "humaness" is a broad subject, and so some human conflicts are more important to the character than others. The primary conflict is the question of the price of fighting evil--or, more simply, do the ends justify the means. Other facets of the human condition important to Batman mythology are family and legacy, and that is where Robin comes in.

Exactly. That's why Batman decided to become a symbol, not a cop with children that survive him.

That's why he was after inspiration, not funding a orphanage where determined children could be trained to fight crime as minors.

This, too, is no counterargument. Saying "If Batman was about fatherhood, he would have been a cop with kids!" is absolutely meaningless. As I said: the themes do not have to be illustrated in conventional ways in order to be present. There are expressed in extreme, unconventional ways because that makes for interesting fiction. This includes an ideal, such as Batman, giving way to another ideal, such as Robin, as a means of examining legacy, succession, and yes, fatherhood.

Superman has put his own life in Batman's hands giving him Kryptonite. Superman has been quite important in the way Batman sees his own mission, contrasted with the way Superman does his own. The main merit for Robin being called "cornerstone" is the amount of time and issues the character has been there. Superman, for the case, has been as important even if he hasn't been there most of the time.

Superman is often used to illustrate contrast, but far more rarely as a catalyst. Robin as always been a catalyst for change within the Batman mythology, and his function is of far greater importance.

I think I said that the "Adapting Robin" thread was one to discuss fans' ideas over adapting Robin that didn't consider that Nolan and Bale could suddenly change their minds about Robin.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

 

[Saint]

Given that their lives are splashed all over the news, it's not a stretch by any means.

It's a massive stretch. All "evidence" is purely circumstantial and irrelevant. I'll admit to be frequently amazed by human stupidity, but even I don't believe that the idea of the adoption of Grayson being connected to Batman and Robin would be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't think Robin should really be known to the public.

After all, how often does anyone in public see Batman?

 

[Crook]

It's a massive stretch. All "evidence" is purely circumstantial and irrelevant. I'll admit to be frequently amazed by human stupidity, but even I don't believe that the idea of the adoption of Grayson being connected to Batman and Robin would be taken seriously by anyone.

I'm still not understanding why it's a "massive stretch". Bruce is a rich boy left orphaned when his parents were killed in front of him. Batman appears not long after Bruce returns to Gotham. Batman becomes a famed vigilante. Dick is a talented acrobat left orphaned when his parents are killed in front of him. Robin appears not long after this. Robin soon becomes associated with Batman and is known as his young partner.

Add to the fact that Bruce decides to adopt him, the public will no doubt see their similar backstories. Is it really that much of a stretch to see the glaring similarities in these public figures, and looking at Batman/Robin, vigilantes who at the moment have an unknown motive in dedicating their lives to fight crime on their own? Hypothetically speaking, you don't see anyone piecing (some of) this together?

I don't think Robin should really be known to the public.

After all, how often does anyone in public see Batman?

That's how I would do it. Or if he is made public, not immediately associate him as Batman's partner. At best, (presumably) inspired from his work.