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

[Darknightnomis]

Adding Robin to these set of Batman movies is like adding any new aspect to them, it can be done...IF DONE RIGHT.

If Nolan approach the origin of Robin with the sae seriousness as he did Batman then it'll work.

Actually a story were Batman becomes a surrogate father to another child that lost his parents could be really good.

 

[kmrbeckman]

I don't disagree with the storyline anubis, I'm just saying that the version Nolan is using has no need for a Robin; he would add nothing to the story other than just a possible sidekick that Batman has to save from a villain's trap to lure Batman in or vice versa. I think that the fact that Nolan's Batman has received great acclaim speaks to the consensus that what he is doing doesn't need to be changed; "mixing it up" as Schumacher did is the exact type of garbage that will sink this megolithic movie franchise. Adding in Robin will detract from the "grittiness" by adding a sophomoric tone to the films and reduce the film to less than what it would be without Robin. Adding characters is good when they aid the telling of a story; but Robin doesn't "aid" Batman's story - he creates his own and his anguish is just mirroring that of Bruce's suffering. Robin's suffering just parrallels Batman's in a comic book version of "ditto". Robin's suffering is an insufficient reason to create a character that would actually move the story along. If anything, Robin belongs in the comics and not in Nolan's version. Let's just call this another "alternate universe" - a better universe...where Robin doesn't exist.

 

[regwec]

The Batfamily works very well in the comics, because the volume of material, available scenarios and dramatis personae is huge. Batman, Nightwing, Red Robin, Robin, Azrael, Batgirl, Batwoman, Knight and Squire, Red Hood etc can all live happily in the DCU, occassionaly crossing paths. In a single movie, however, this is obviously preposterous: Batman has to be the spine of the narrative, and one could argue that supporting allies (other than Alfred and Gordon) dilute themes which should centre on him alone. An explosion in brightly coloured (and usually teenaged) side-kicks would always seem as camp as Kenneth Williams on screen.

I do, however, think that there is room for one. It would add a new dimension to Bruce's character- one that many of us face- to attempt to be a good father figure while mourning a lost father. For tradition's sake, the "son" should be Richard Grayson. There is so much history to that character's relationship with Bruce, and so much to do with it, that it would be a shame for no one ever to try on film.

 

[kmrbeckman]

I guess what I'm saying is that there are reasons to have Robin if he moves the story along; however, I don't see how Robin's story, which parallels Batman's own anguish, really does anything but add a little tug to the heart when Bruce takes him in as a surrogate son. After that, they just do the same stuff together - fight crime, investigate crimes, etc. To me, we already have a good dark story with a quality superhero - why do we need anyone else alongside?

 

[Jostru]

Nolan... don't listen to Traidkd!

Seriously. Robin doesn't fit in Nolan's movies. And why do people want Robin anyway? I love Batman more when he's on his own. Sidekicks only slow him down and make him less epic IMO.

 

[Infinatal]

The only way I'd support a Robin/Nightwing is if he was killed off in the movie he was introduced in. Use him as a device to both shock the audience and teach Bruce that the whole amateur sidekick thing doesn't work. That would actually be kind of effective and he'd serve a purpose or two.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Absolutely agree - Batman does not need a counterpart (sidekick) that will create another Joel Schumacher debacle to a currently stellar on-its-way-to-be trilogy (or trilogy plus one being that Bale is still under contract for two more Batman movies).

Robin would add nothing to the story - Batman's tortured past is sufficient to keep the series going for two more films; bring in some good villains and you can keep the story continuing for quite some time without fans getting bored.

If you create a mockery of Batman like Schumacher did, you'll lose all the grittiness to the Batman universe. What made Schumacher's vision bad was that he removed everything that made Batman a dark comic series and he made it akin to the 1960s Adam West Batman show. The bright colors, the ridiculous bright costumes made it all bubblegum and pop. The film's Nolan creates are a vision of a Batman that is more realistic along with more realistic villains; a lone superhero, that is a lone wolf that works alone and doesn't need help (remember, he said that in the film TDK?), is more realistic than one with a sidekick. Vigilantes either work alone or in large mobs; they don't work in pairs.

The Batman Comics are good in their own right; the films do not need to reflect, verbatim, the comics.

If you ve read any comics instead of just basing your opinion on movies, you would have known that Robin is a pretty serious, interesting and very important character to the bat-franchise. Just because Schumacher did it wrong, it doesnt mean that it cant be done right. There is no camp in Robin, other than his suit and his age, which can be somewhat tampered with.

The Schumacher films didn't suck because of Robin, they sucked because of Schumacher.

Indeed. And actually, Forever was pretty good. Schumacher handled Dick pretty well if you ask me.

Schumacher's vision sucked because he tried to go the 60's Batman route.

I wish he had. He couldnt decide whether the movie was supposed to be serious or Brave and Bold balls to wall fun. Also, i dont expect the general audience to want to spend money on a "silly" batman movie. They expect a certain tone from the franchise and they want exactly that. If you read comics, you can have your serious monthly stories and still enjoy some "elseworlds" fun stories about Batman fighting monkeys riding pterodactyls because you already had your dose of serious Batman.

I don't disagree with the storyline anubis, I'm just saying that the version Nolan is using has no need for a Robin; he would add nothing to the story other than just a possible sidekick that Batman has to save from a villain's trap to lure Batman in or vice versa. I think that the fact that Nolan's Batman has received great acclaim speaks to the consensus that what he is doing doesn't need to be changed; "mixing it up" as Schumacher did is the exact type of garbage that will sink this megolithic movie franchise. Adding in Robin will detract from the "grittiness" by adding a sophomoric tone to the films and reduce the film to less than what it would be without Robin. Adding characters is good when they aid the telling of a story; but Robin doesn't "aid" Batman's story - he creates his own and his anguish is just mirroring that of Bruce's suffering. Robin's suffering just parrallels Batman's in a comic book version of "ditto". Robin's suffering is an insufficient reason to create a character that would actually move the story along. If anything, Robin belongs in the comics and not in Nolan's version. Let's just call this another "alternate universe" - a better universe...where Robin doesn't exist.

Robin is a foil through which the reader/viewer can look deeper into Batman. Then, Dick's more cheerful nature drew Bruce out of the shadows and his own seclusion. Morrison's current run (which did a big revisit of Bruce's past) explained that. Bruce came to realise how important it was for him to have Dick by his side keeping in him touch with reality, with fun.
And finally, Dick is Bruce's son and the one who will continue his legacy (until Terry... ). Batman cant have a family and therefore someone to take up the mantle. Robin is the closest he can have.

The Batfamily works very well in the comics, because the volume of material, available scenarios and dramatis personae is huge. Batman, Nightwing, Red Robin, Robin, Azrael, Batgirl, Batwoman, Knight and Squire, Red Hood etc can all live happily in the DCU, occassionaly crossing paths. In a single movie, however, this is obviously preposterous: Batman has to be the spine of the narrative, and one could argue that supporting allies (other than Alfred and Gordon) dilute themes which should centre on him alone. An explosion in brightly coloured (and usually teenaged) side-kicks would always seem as camp as Kenneth Williams on screen.

I do, however, think that there is room for one. It would add a new dimension to Bruce's character- one that many of us face- to attempt to be a good father figure while mourning a lost father. For tradition's sake, the "son" should be Richard Grayson. There is so much history to that character's relationship with Bruce, and so much to do with it, that it would be a shame for no one ever to try on film.

I agree with everything you say. However for me, the Batfamily is way too big in the comics. I'm not saying he should only have Robin, but this is waaay too many people!

 

[CaptainClown]

I personally like batman solo mainly because I feel that it isolates him more from everyone else that he keeps around him. The other characters unless they are killed off don't quite interest me. Sure there are really good stories with them involved however I just don't think it is quite the same.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Robin was only created cause it gave Batman something other than Thinking Bubble above his head. Also to make readers want be like Robin,someone to relate to.

I think if he were to be introduced,they need to have a drastic Christopher Nolan style overhaul.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't disagree with the storyline anubis, I'm just saying that the version Nolan is using has no need for a Robin; he would add nothing to the story other than just a possible sidekick that Batman has to save from a villain's trap to lure Batman in or vice versa. I think that the fact that Nolan's Batman has received great acclaim speaks to the consensus that what he is doing doesn't need to be changed; "mixing it up" as Schumacher did is the exact type of garbage that will sink this megolithic movie franchise. Adding in Robin will detract from the "grittiness" by adding a sophomoric tone to the films and reduce the film to less than what it would be without Robin. Adding characters is good when they aid the telling of a story; but Robin doesn't "aid" Batman's story - he creates his own and his anguish is just mirroring that of Bruce's suffering. Robin's suffering just parrallels Batman's in a comic book version of "ditto". Robin's suffering is an insufficient reason to create a character that would actually move the story along. If anything, Robin belongs in the comics and not in Nolan's version. Let's just call this another "alternate universe" - a better universe...where Robin doesn't exist.

So it wouldn't bring the trilogy and in particular Bruce's story full circle?

Bruce now taking on the role of Ra's. Teaching this young, angry man to use his rage for good?

Taking the teachings of his real father and Ra's and combining them.

"What do we do when we fall down Dick? We learn to pick ourselves up"

I think a cool way to end the third film would be Bruce saying to Dick "Are you ready to begin?" Echoing what Ra's said to Bruce in BB.

 

[Mr. Earle]

So it wouldn't bring the trilogy and in particular Bruce's story full circle?

Bruce now taking on the role of Ra's. Teaching this young, angry man to use his rage for good?

Taking the teachings of his real father and Ra's and combining them.

"What do we do when we fall down Dick? We learn to pick ourselves up"

I think a cool way to end the third film would be Bruce saying to Dick "Are you ready to begin?" Echoing what Ra's said to Bruce in BB.

I couldnt help but laugh! Batman in his 50ies?
No offence...

But seriously, i really like your idea. I love the mentor/successor stuff. Vito and Michael (Godfather), Greene and Carter (ER), Batman and Robin, Ras and Bruce, Bruce and Terry, etc...
I especially like how you have Bruce use quotes of Ducard's. To me it shows the influence he had on Bruce and the respect Bruce has for him (even though he turned out to have a rather evil sense of justice).

Robin was only created cause it gave Batman something other than Thinking Bubble above his head. Also to make readers want be like Robin,someone to relate to.

I think if he were to be introduced,they need to have a drastic Christopher Nolan style overhaul.

That was why he was originally created yes, but later his role became more important than that. He is a vital part of the mythology.
And even if he is introduced at some point, it doesnt mean that he has to be in every sequel if there is nothing for him to do. During the duration of said sequel, he could barely appear (or not at all) "because he is with the Titans", "because he is training in Tibet", or "because he has exams at school".

 

[CaptainClown]

I could see it working more if they just changed his role to his son who he is mentoring, would have probably worked better if it was the son of Harvey and Rachel cause they both died and he took on the responsibility of raising the child. I don't think I would have the character take on criminal responsibilities but just explore Bruce looking upon his own life.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I could see it working more if they just changed his role to his son who he is mentoring, would have probably worked better if it was the son of Harvey and Rachel cause they both died and he took on the responsibility of raising the child. I don't think I would have the character take on criminal responsibilities but just explore Bruce looking upon his own life.

So you dont have a problem that batman has a kid for a sidekick (which is the most common complaint). You just want Dick to be Rachel's kid.
I.... dont get you guys sometimes. First Catwoman should be Sionis' daughter, now this... What's next... Rachel as Mr Freeze's wife? For god's sake!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think Ra's/Ducard should still have a big impression on Bruce. Sure he ended up being a megalomaniacal maniac, but he mentored Bruce, brought him back from the brink.

Bruce passing on these things to Dick would just seem like a natural progression of the character.

And Cap that's a pretty cool idea too. To bad they are both brown bread already though

 

[CaptainClown]

So you dont have a problem that batman has a kid for a sidekick (which is the most common complaint). You just want Dick to be Rachel's kid.
I.... dont get you guys sometimes. First Catwoman should be Sionis' daughter, now this... What's next... Rachel as Mr Freeze's wife? For god's sake!

no I don't want him to be a sidekick either, I am just saying i would rather have there be more just reason for Bruce Wayne to adopt the kid. as well as not raising eyebrows if it was just that random family. I don't want the kid to be Robin at all but just being raised by Bruce, if there was that connection he felt obligated to do so especially in the case if it was Harvey and Rachel then he is also "responsible" for the child since he indirectly killed both of them.

 

[kmrbeckman]

Mr. Earle - just because I haven't read the comics in their entirety I can sum it up pretty well: kid's parents are killed by a nefarious individual (story changes dependent on which one you go by) and he seeks revenge. Well, Robin's story sure seems a lot like Batman's, doesn't it? Why would Nolan need to repeat something he has already done?

If Robin is a foil as you say he is, which I don't dispute, then we really don't need him being that Alfred takes the place of Robin in the movies. I feel that Alfred and Bruce share a father/son relationship which further moves both characters and opens up for a great amount of mature humor. One could argue that Bruce could do the same for Dick but at the same time the story isn't really a focus on Bruce being a father figure. Alfred and Bruce's relationship gives Bruce the chance to communicate with someone so that the audience knows what he is thinking; the same goes for when he is Batman and he talks to Lucius Fox and Alfred. Also, as for a mechanic goes, Batman goes to Lucius for new technology and Alfred and Lucius do maintenance on the equipment - what would Robin do? Hold the flashlight while Lucius is working on the engine of the Batmobile? Essentially, there isn't a place for Robin, he's been phased out by other characters.

As for the "training" of another person to take on the mantle, Batman is only in his early thirties in Nolan's saga so why does Batman need to train anyone at this point? Batman is fully efficient on his own and is in excellent health; to look after a 12-15 year-old boy who is emotional because his parents were just killed and that's going through hormonal changes is just not going to fit into the series and what Nolan has been moving towards so far.

Nolan's films reflect the decay of Gotham and that as Batman has tried to fix the city it has opened up greater wounds than just the mob. Batman's struggle lies within and to bring in a character that does nothing but parallel Batman's own struggles does nothing to further the story. The villains that Batman faces further the story because they are the product of Batman's labor; by trying to clean up the city, Batman lures more fantastical villains to try to halt his efforts.

The films are more about Batman himself and being that Batman has his sidekick in Alfred, who does everything that is required for dialogue to be furthered through the movie, there is no need for Robin.

I understand that you may find there to be reason for Robin but most of what Robin could provide is already being provided by other characters that I feel have much more necessary roles than the one Robin portrayed.

 

[jackshea]

actually, the reason batman takes robin is because of those similarities and is more of a reflection on Bruce's fragile psyche, he take4s this kid who just lost his parents, and immediately thrusts him into this horrible world of masked vigilantism against his will, the kid doesn't even get time to grieve. Robin is a result of Batman's misguided attempts at pacifying his own tragic childhood, thinking that becoming the Batman somehow fixed the fact that he lost his childhood. Dick being a lighter, more fun character shows Bruce how Dick isn't exactly like him, the circumstances are different and he may have ruined this boy's life. Robin's story ultimately puts Batman's tale into perspective for the everyman, since Bruce has done what he can to practically become an inhuman legend and Robin is what grounds him and shows just how flawed this man really is, it amplifies his tragedy to whole new levels that haven't really been explored in a film, they've only really hinted at how damaged Bruce really is and I think that adding Dick's story fleshes out a lot of Batman's problems.

 

[kmrbeckman]

actually, the reason batman takes robin is because of those similarities and is more of a reflection on Bruce's fragile psyche, he take4s this kid who just lost his parents, and immediately thrusts him into this horrible world of masked vigilantism against his will, the kid doesn't even get time to grieve. Robin is a result of Batman's misguided attempts at pacifying his own tragic childhood, thinking that becoming the Batman somehow fixed the fact that he lost his childhood. Dick being a lighter, more fun character shows Bruce how Dick isn't exactly like him, the circumstances are different and he may have ruined this boy's life. Robin's story ultimately puts Batman's tale into perspective for the everyman, since Bruce has done what he can to practically become an inhuman legend and Robin is what grounds him and shows just how flawed this man really is, it amplifies his tragedy to whole new levels that haven't really been explored in a film, they've only really hinted at how damaged Bruce really is and I think that adding Dick's story fleshes out a lot of Batman's problems.

I'll agree to that - that sounds reasonable; if Nolan could do that, then I guess I could see a good use of Robin.

 

[Two-Face]

Nolan might use Robin in Batman 3 since this is his last Bat-movie. Once he uses origin of Robin in this film he let another director take his place for fourth movie and carrying teliing stories of Batman & Robin from comics for example: Dark Victory, A Death In The Family.

 

[Mr. Earle]

no I don't want him to be a sidekick either, I am just saying i would rather have there be more just reason for Bruce Wayne to adopt the kid. as well as not raising eyebrows if it was just that random family. I don't want the kid to be Robin at all but just being raised by Bruce, if there was that connection he felt obligated to do so especially in the case if it was Harvey and Rachel then he is also "responsible" for the child since he indirectly killed both of them.

Okay then, sorry i misunderstood you. I kind of like it, but in the end, like in Dick's case where Bruce thought he could be a good parent, sooner or later the kid would find out why Bruce is never home and eventually become Robin.
So i prefer Dick's original origin, where Bruce sees himself in the eyes of the boy and chooses to give him the help and guidance that he received from his various mentors around the world (or Ras in the movie's case).

 

[Timstuff]

My opinion has simply been that it's very difficult NOT to undermine Batman's status as one of DC's darkest heroes when he's running around the streets with a teenager dressed in a Christmas-colored costume. Robin is and always has been there for the sake of lightening things up, and if I wanted something lighter I'd go with Superman (I like Superman, but for different reasons than Batman).

 

[Mr. Earle]

Mr. Earle - just because I haven't read the comics in their entirety I can sum it up pretty well: kid's parents are killed by a nefarious individual (story changes dependent on which one you go by) and he seeks revenge. Well, Robin's story sure seems a lot like Batman's, doesn't it? Why would Nolan need to repeat something he has already done?

I wasnt boasting about how many comics i have read. Actually i have not read all that many. But i have come across some very good Robin stories where the character makes sense. I would suggest you pick up the entirety of Morrison's run. He recaps Batman's whole history and tries to give him some mental therapy, so that he becomes a more balanced person again, after previous writers have brought him to the brink of madness with their lazy writing. While doing so, Morrison revisits batman's past and tries to integrate everything that has ever happened to his story. The cheesy, the serious, the funny, the dark... He considers that everything printed in the comics all these years has happened, despite the fact that the silver age comics are silly by today's standards or that the 90ies were overly dark.
Anyway, you ll see through all this recap, how important for Bruce's psych Robin was. In the end, Batman and Alfred fighting the same bad guys over and over again gets kinda boring.

One could argue that Bruce could do the same for Dick but at the same time the story isn't really a focus on Bruce being a father figure. Alfred and Bruce's relationship gives Bruce the chance to communicate with someone so that the audience knows what he is thinking; the same goes for when he is Batman and he talks to Lucius Fox and Alfred. Also, as for a mechanic goes, Batman goes to Lucius for new technology and Alfred and Lucius do maintenance on the equipment - what would Robin do? Hold the flashlight while Lucius is working on the engine of the Batmobile? Essentially, there isn't a place for Robin, he's been phased out by other characters.

But that's the point. That Bruce is now responsible for a kid, who he slowly begins to love to the point where he properly adopts him (he was only a guardian at first). We see Bruce making mistakes as a parent, we see how it is for someone to be raised in a cave by the goddamn brooding Batman (and yet never lose his smile), and in the end, Dick is the successor. You just cant ignore him.

As for the "training" of another person to take on the mantle, Batman is only in his early thirties in Nolan's saga so why does Batman need to train anyone at this point? Batman is fully efficient on his own and is in excellent health; to look after a 12-15 year-old boy who is emotional because his parents were just killed and that's going through hormonal changes is just not going to fit into the series and what Nolan has been moving towards so far.

Because its all about Batman getting his own weird family.

The films are more about Batman himself and being that Batman has his sidekick in Alfred, who does everything that is required for dialogue to be furthered through the movie, there is no need for Robin.

Yeah, it was soooo great that most of Bruce's dialogue in TDK was just for exposition.

I understand that you may find there to be reason for Robin but most of what Robin could provide is already being provided by other characters that I feel have much more necessary roles than the one Robin portrayed

You can prefer the lonely Batman all you want, but you cant tell me that Robin has no role to play. That's just ignorant. Unless for you Batman only needs a wall (Alfred) to throw the ball at and expose the plot. I think it gets boring after a while. How many episodes of House solving the case can you watch without getting bored? The character needs to move forward to new grounds or it gets stale. And that's why House had various bigger story arcs over the years. He even changed his team!

 

[Mr. Earle]

actually, the reason batman takes robin is because of those similarities and is more of a reflection on Bruce's fragile psyche, he take4s this kid who just lost his parents, and immediately thrusts him into this horrible world of masked vigilantism against his will, the kid doesn't even get time to grieve. Robin is a result of Batman's misguided attempts at pacifying his own tragic childhood, thinking that becoming the Batman somehow fixed the fact that he lost his childhood. Dick being a lighter, more fun character shows Bruce how Dick isn't exactly like him, the circumstances are different and he may have ruined this boy's life. Robin's story ultimately puts Batman's tale into perspective for the everyman, since Bruce has done what he can to practically become an inhuman legend and Robin is what grounds him and shows just how flawed this man really is, it amplifies his tragedy to whole new levels that haven't really been explored in a film, they've only really hinted at how damaged Bruce really is and I think that adding Dick's story fleshes out a lot of Batman's problems.

I cant remember if Bruce actually forces him to become a vigilante or if Dick finds out that Bruce is Batman and convinces him to train him. In any case, i prefer the second version which is the one that even Schumacher was wise enough to choose.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

My opinion has simply been that it's very difficult NOT to undermine Batman's status as one of DC's darkest heroes when he's running around the streets with a teenager dressed in a Christmas-colored costume. Robin is and always has been there for the sake of lightening things up, and if I wanted something lighter I'd go with Superman (I like Superman, but for different reasons than Batman).

That maybe true in the comics, originally.

But there is no reason to say that adding Robin into Nolan's world, adapted to fit Nolan's world, would automatically lighten it.

 

[returntovoid]

I'm not a fan of the character Robin but if Nolan introduces him in the third film, I wont be bothered because it doesn't mean that Nolan's dark version of Batman will automatically become lightened or camped up.