I know these weren't directed at me but I'd like to take a shot at answering them.
1.) Batman didn't kill any of Ras Al Ghul's men in Gotham, they all know his identity. Why don't they come forward?
They answer to an organization with a higher purpose. They turn in Bruce and The League Of Shadows, their methods, hierarchy, objective and whereabouts would be in the spotlight, vulnerable. They must take out Bruce but they must protect the secrecy of the League.
2.) If this whole "Batman" thing was a reality, Batman would be dead. PERIOD. If he didn't die from crime fighting people would figure out that the richest man was the vigilante known for all of his technology. That would end things pretty quick.
I've never understood why people would think Batman is a rich guy. He could be working for someone else, or at least have his tech supplied by soeone else. He could steal it. Who knows? If Bruce puts up a consistent façade there's more than reasonable doubt. Anyone claiming Bruce Wayne is Batman without proof wouldn't be believed by the public. And about getting killed in action... well, he probably would. Probably. But as long as he's shown
almost dying from time to time, it's a very moderate suspension of disbelief.
3.) Bruce is always the center of attention? How come no one noticed his convo with Ras, especially the guest that introduces him?
By the look on her face as she leaves inmediatly after the introduction, I always assumed she was working with/for the League.
About the convo... no one was listening. It would be rude. It's a high-elite party, after all. It wasn't loud and it was a quite short conversation, after all.
4.) After Batman finds out that Joker has kidnapped Dent AND Dawes how come Gordon and none of the other officers question why Batman would care so much after not losing it for Dent? He loses his cool on the mention of Rachel AND messes up when Gordon asks who is he going after.
"RACHEL."
Not Ms. Dawes?
If I were a policeman, I would just guess Batman loses his cool when there's an innocent woman involved. That Batman is just priorizing the woman in jeopardy. He wouldn't have the lady's death on his conscience and it's just letting the brave Dent expect the police help. What's strage about that? That he says her first name? Enraged, in the middle of a stressful situation? Maybe he was just being condescending, referring to her by her first name. Bruce's
strong bond to Rachel Dawes is not that public, anyway. If instead of "rachel" Batman would've shouted "
HARVEY!", do you think the police would have thought he and Dent were close friends?
Not to mention that Gordon and his force aren't going after Batman at that point, they're letting him be. If they really wanted to know who Batman was, they would've ambushed and unmaked him
while inside the interrogation room. Or when he had passed out after
not running over the Joker. It's just more important to them to have his help than his identity.
The point is, you could have this "realistic" reasoning for Robin also, just like we do for Batman, Joker, Alfred, Scarecrow, etc.
Just to play devil's advocate, maybe Robin doesn't stand that kind of reasoning. It certainly contradicts big points of Batman's character and outlook that are monumental to Nolan's adaptation.
Admit that you just don't like the character, because it's evident you don't. There's is NOTHING wrong with that. I'm not to eager to have him in films either, but saying it would be lame to have the character in it or that he wouldn't work is an ignorant thing to say.
A simple "I don't like the character of Robin and don't want to see him in future Batman films" would suffice.
Maybe he doesn't like Robin
because he
doesn't fit with those other parts of the mythos. I know that's my reason.
Going by your logic against Robin, Batman wouldn't last a day in the "real world". It's not the real world though, it's ****ing fiction. But hell we still like it.
O course it's not realism, no fiction is. But within the realm of fiction, the are different levels of verisimilitude. If Robin doesn't fit the things we've seen so far in Nolan's Batman, he doesn't fit and that's it. He may be perfect for other takes with different aesthetic, psychological or verisimilitude "ground rules". Are you sure that Robin fits "anywhere"? Cuz' I'm not.
Saying it "just wouldn't work" when it hasn't been done is nonsense. It could be very emotional, tragic, and exciting seeing Robin done in a real and serious way, bad character or not.
I think it can work, but after the next sequel. I also think it would need some serious work and screen time in his origin to make it as smooth as possible. More than one film, for sure. A character like that needs some heavy adaptation for the current spirit of the series, IMO, and Nolan would probably be done for after one more sequel.
Did everyone give up hope on a serious, "realistic" Batman after Batman and Robin? No. Look what we got. Why should Robin or ATLEAST Dick Grayson be any different?
Why should it be the same?
