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

[Alex Logan]

Oh, sir...

:facepalm

~HoH~

Come on, you must admit that Nolan has impoved some things.

 

[El Payaso]

Come on, you must admit that Nolan has impoved somethings.

Pickard will find peace in admision.

 

[Hooded Justice]

That was anything but Catwoman. That wasn't even Selina Kyle. Not to mention that is the Catwoman-Batman relationship what matters the most.



No one is. From that perspective this franchise is already over.



Catwoman could mean a more dangerous thing for Batman. She shows Batman what is to be in love and not able to develope a normal relationship. He has to arrest her but he's actually in love with her, a woman whose name he doesn't even know.

Plus, Catwoman is physically more skillful about fighting than Joker. She's more dangerous therefore in that aspect.



Why? Women don't exist in real world?



Reasonable contradicts dangerous.

But if you want dangerous: Catwoman.



That would happen if - and only if - Nolan was forced to use Catwoman. If he doesn't want her, then I'm ok with it.

In my opinion, the second movie should really have had the Scarecrow back and maybe someone like Black Mask, or the Riddler, with Harvey Dent only becoming Two-Face at the very end. Then the third movie could have been all about Two-Face, with maybe Catwoman added in too. Then the fourth movie could have been all about the Joker. Putting in the Joker so soon basically means Batman Begins, Batman Ends.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Does anybody else feel Nolan wrote himself into a partial corner by killing off Dent?
Everybody dislikes the killing of villains in these movies and even TDK falls for it
Hell even in the comics he was once given surgery and rehabilitated but turned evil anyway

 

[Hooded Justice]

Does anybody else feel Nolan wrote himself into a partial corner by killing off Dent?
Everybody dislikes the killing of villains in these movies and even TDK falls for it
Hell even in the comics he was once given surgery and rehabilitated but turned evil anyway

Yeah. Two-Face deserved his own movie, dammit. Aaron Eckhart was excellent. That man deserves a far greater career than what he has. He's got all the attributes of a classic film star leading man. He's a hell of a looker, and a damn fine actor. Why does Hollywood so consistently ignore him?

 

[Ethermatic]

Yeah. Two-Face deserved his own movie, dammit. Aaron Eckhart was excellent. That man deserves a far greater career than what he has. He's got all the attributes of a classic film star leading man. He's a hell of a looker, and a damn fine actor. Why does Hollywood so consistently ignore him?

Personally, I'm not sure Harvey Dent/Two-Face needed to be killed. But I do think he served his purpose in The Dark Knight. I much preferred his motivation in the film as opposed to his obsession with committing crimes based on the No. 2 and things like that. Whether you liked the ending or not, I think he had a complete story arc in The Dark Knight. But, maybe that's just me.

As for Robin, I just don't think it's time for him just yet. I'm not opposed to his return in the future, provided after Nolan leaves they continue with the same continuity. I just think he isn't necessary at this point. But, I've no doubt that whenever he does return, there are ways to put him in this much more believable world. With a tweak here or there, I'm sure.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

In my opinion, the second movie should really have had the Scarecrow back and maybe someone like Black Mask, or the Riddler, with Harvey Dent only becoming Two-Face at the very end. Then the third movie could have been all about Two-Face, with maybe Catwoman added in too. Then the fourth movie could have been all about the Joker. Putting in the Joker so soon basically means Batman Begins, Batman Ends.

I do kinda agree with what you are saying. If this is going to be a trilogy it needs to go out with a bang, I don't think any other villains could provide that bang like Joker. Maybe they should have saved him for the final installment.

 

[El Payaso]

In my opinion, the second movie should really have had the Scarecrow back and maybe someone like Black Mask, or the Riddler, with Harvey Dent only becoming Two-Face at the very end. Then the third movie could have been all about Two-Face, with maybe Catwoman added in too. Then the fourth movie could have been all about the Joker. Putting in the Joker so soon basically means Batman Begins, Batman Ends.

Actually the only problem with adding Joker in TDK was that Heath did both a legendary performance and die.

The idea behind Joker - which was excellent - is that this first confrontation is just the beginning. Many other villiains will come but Joker will always be Batman's eternal nightmare. He can escape from Arkham any day.

Was I the only one who felt the shivers when Joker said "we're meant to do this forever"?

But since Joker's return is uncertain, yes, now most of villiains sound not too impressive by comparision. But there was no inherent mistake by including him in TDK.

Does anybody else feel Nolan wrote himself into a partial corner by killing off Dent?

On the contrary, I'd have felt he would have cornered himself by giving Two-Face such an spoecific and magnificent motivation and then let him, free to go. He brings his concept of justice to everyone who let him down, and then what? Robbing the second Gotham Bank on February the 2nd?

Everybody dislikes the killing of villains in these movies and even TDK falls for it

I don't know who does, but I have loved it since 1989 when it brings an epic ending for a great villian.

Two-Face dead also served a great purpose and brought Batman to the next level; taking the blame of some crimes in order to keep his ideals for Gotham City untouched. The kind of hero the city needs.

Hell even in the comics he was once given surgery and rehabilitated but turned evil anyway

So? Isn't clear enough at this point that the movies won't follow the comics frame by frame?

The obsession with number 2 is also canon in comic books, but the way Two-Face was portrayed in TDK was so much better than that.

Yeah. Two-Face deserved his own movie, dammit. Aaron Eckhart was excellent. That man deserves a far greater career than what he has. He's got all the attributes of a classic film star leading man. He's a hell of a looker, and a damn fine actor. Why does Hollywood so consistently ignore him?

I agree. Eckhardt acting job was for me the most amazing in the movie.

 

[Alex Logan]

Pickard will find peace in admision.

Boy, I hope so.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Sorry, no admission from this end. You can't use the words "we all know" such and such when clearly there are opposing opinions on the matter. Technically speaking? In that instance, I would be part of that "we", and I'm really not. So saying "most of us", or "there are a lot of people that would agree that" such and such, would be a much more appropriate approach.

But the only reason I even said anything to begin with was simply because it was suggested that Nolan had improved things from the comics. And attached to it was the statement that we're all on board with this idea.
As an avid comic fan, I could not disagree with his initial statement more. If you want detailed reasons, I can list them... but that's a long, and rather off topic conversation. Perhaps in a PM?

But all of those reasons are sort of why I truly want Robin in these films... and yet at the same time? I don't. I don't want him to get the same treatment as before. To have him changed so much just to match someone else's vision of him. I'm not talking costume changes, or ALL possible age changes, or even some origin changes. I'm talking if they feel the need to totally and completely change who and what this character is...both to Bruce, and to Batman. At that point it isn't even Robin, so it's somewhat pointless. But that's kind of my opinion on Batman too...


~HoH~

 

[COMPO]

well two face could have had his own movie maybe he could, like ra's al ghul uses the lazarus pit lets two face use it to "have a second chance" and to be the judge jury and executioner of gotham. being the protege he wanted.

 

[hatebox]

Yeah. Two-Face deserved his own movie, dammit. Aaron Eckhart was excellent. That man deserves a far greater career than what he has. He's got all the attributes of a classic film star leading man. He's a hell of a looker, and a damn fine actor. Why does Hollywood so consistently ignore him?

Having a major part in literally one of the most successful movies ever is more than even big stars have any right to hope for.

Besides after TDK he'll get a slew of offers.

 

[WeaponXProject]

I'm not saying to add Robin but to show Dick Grayson as someone Bruce meets would be interesting. In no way does that mean to make him a major character but to have Alfred remind Bruce that this boy is not much different than him would be cool to allude to the future. I am interested in seeing more characters perhaps before they become villains, heroes, etc...

 

[terry78]

If Nolan said tomorrow that the third movie would involve Robin, no one would argue his stance, including the movie's cast and crew. He could change his mind between now and then.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

The obsession with number 2 is also canon in comic books, but the way Two-Face was portrayed in TDK was so much better than that.

I fail to see how Two-Face of the movie was better than in the comics, unless you are only implying it was better than his more Silver Age or lacklustre comic appearances.

 

[El Payaso]

I fail to see how Two-Face of the movie was better than in the comics, unless you are only implying it was better than his more Silver Age or lacklustre comic appearances.

I didn't say "better than comics" but "better than the obsession with number 2" as seen in some of the instances you mention.

 

[Blaztro]

I think that if Nolan does add Robin, it will be Jim Gordon's son. He's one of the few people in the city who will not view Batman as a menace in the third movie. He looks up to Batman. And Bruce can be at least ambivalent towards children, such as how in Begins he gave the kid on the fire escape his periscope so his friends would believe him.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

well all i have to say is, if robin is in the third film, i will not be seeing it.not only because im not a fan of Robin; but Bale Stated Himself [I Don't think this is the full and correct quote; but it's something like] "If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work."

 

[terry78]

well all i have to say is, if robin is in the third film, i will not be seeing it.not only because im not a fan of Robin; but Bale Stated Himself [I Don't think this is the full and correct quote; but it's something like] "If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work."

He ain't doing that. He was just saying that to say it, I suspect. If Nolan came out and said Robin was going to be in it, I doubt Bale would just not trust that he could do it well.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I didn't say "better than comics" but "better than the obsession with number 2" as seen in some of the instances you mention.

Oh cool just checking. Though his obsession with duality makes a lot of sense I think the 2 obsession should only ever be subtle and not totally necessary to his plan, so I agree there.

 

[El Payaso]

Oh cool just checking. Though his obsession with duality makes a lot of sense I think the 2 obsession should only ever be subtle and not totally necessary to his plan, so I agree there.

Absolutely. In fact I think the use of the coin is very subtle and also very intelligent, since it mixes his true obsession, justice and chance, with number 2.

 

[Temple Fugate]

I believe Nolan said he would never add Robin

more power to him

Batman thrashed the "bat-men" it would be horrid if he went ahead and adopted a gymnast kid.

 

[Majik1387]

He never said never, he's just not interested in putting him in his movies.

 

[El Payaso]

He never said never, he's just not interested in putting him in his movies.

He said "not on my watch." Therefore, Robin will never be there, at least with Nolan directing. And I don't think executives are too excited about Robin either.

 

[8wid]

I would rather see a stronger reworking of Robin's back story instead of the orphan child that a potentially homosexual philanthropist takes in for nefarious reasons. It looks exactly as Superman Returns did with Brandon Routh as a stalker-like figure. Now, I would rather see Dick Grayson as Robert Grayson. Not a kid under sixteen who is the perfect son from a circus family. Instead, I see it better for a kid raised basically brainwashed under the graces to be extremely arrogrant and prideful so much that he is the world's greatest acrobat. When many members of a local circus can't pay debts to the mob, Falconi's successor goes on a rampage and guns down members of the circus. Many performers are killed, including all of the members of Grayson's family. He is taken into state custody, becomes a runaway, and encounters the rebuilt Wayne manner after he breaks in. From here, Bruce is the emotionless, and distant father figure who decides to take him in, while Alfred holds the warmer side that Bruce lacks. It opens up and interesting conflict that causes Batman the need to focus more on his human side.