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

[RustyCage]

The theme over most of the years of the Bat-books and Bat-cartoons and whatever has alawys been even though Wayne feels he can and should go it alone all the time, more often than not he does need a kindred spirit.

Yeah, that's what makes Catwoman so relevant in BB3 as well if you ask me.

It goes for love interests as well as friends or partners. There are loads of examples in the books and cartoons.

 

[cin0]

I agree with everything there. If you ask me, Bruce should meet a 14 year old Dick Grayson who's just too eager and motivated to step him aside. And, as Bruce got "bland", like you say, he will reluctantly oblige... to send him to training abroad (and regular school) during seven years, until he's 21. All that before he sees any field action. That or no dice.
But of course, you cannot do that in just one film, especially one that could take place inmediatly after TDK. Leave it to post-Nolan directors so they can establish new themes, settings and narrative flows. That should do it.

I dont see it working at all that way. If dick is going to appear in the movie at fourteen and not become robin until he's 21 there's no point in even adding the character in.

Dick was like 8 years old when bruce found him in the comicbooks. I say he meets Bruce when he's like 11 or twelve. He should end up helping Bruce in some way before he becomes robin, to show him he actually has potential. Bruce puts him through training and in the next movie, tim is like 14 or 15 as robin.

If Dick doesnt even become robin until he's 21 he might as well take over for bruce as batman. Robin shouldnt even be an adult character anyway that was one of my main problems with batman forever and batman and robin. It should be done the right way: fist Dick, then Jason, and then later Tim.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

Actually now that I think of it, they should just stop making Batman movies.

What else needs to be told? What haven't we seen with Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight?

We've seen the best, the worst, the dark, the light, the serious, the campy. Three different Batmans, one playing a different kind of Batman in both films. A Batman fueled by revenge and justice, a dark, troubled Batman, a Batman that is contemplating quiting because it is getting "childish", a goofy adult Batman, a serious Batman who bases his concepts off of symbols and what is "right"

We've seen the Joker the two best ways he can be shown. Two versions of Two-Face the ONLY ways he can be shown. Robin in one good film and in one bad one. A HOST of Rouges ranging from dark/twisted, campy/cartoony, and brilliant/likeable all of which are fascinating in their own right.

The origin of Batman, the mind of Batman, all his different vehicles and gadgetry. EVERYTHING.

People that don't read the comics can watch all 6 films and "get" the comics. From permawhite/makeup to serious/intense what haven't we seen?

But it can't end, we know that. I just don't get some of the reasoning on here.

EDIT:

We haven't seen Batman unmasked to the whole public or die, that's it. But "the fans" wouldn't want to see those things anyway. If it did occur you can bet we'd/they'd (not sure if I can still be associated with most "fans") voice their/our (?) approval.

 

[RustyCage]

There's always more to tell and see, man. Even if they dried up every ounce of the comics as source material (which they're not even close to), they could still reinvent old things and invent new things. You have to severely condense and generalize things to come to the conclusion you just came to.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

There's always more to tell and see, man. Even if they dried up every ounce of the comics as source material (which they're not even close to), they could still reinvent old things and invent new things. You have to severely condense and generalize things to come to the conclusion you just came to.

Elseworlds? Batman of the Future? Legends of Batman? These are things we have seen before in other mediums that no one wants to see on the big screen. Something more radical like changing Batman's race, sexual preference, or ideals? How about make him a villian?

No, those things won't happen because people don't like drastic change, even if it's exciting and new. This thread is evidence of that.

Come on. Batman 3 (or seven, depending how you look at the series) will have Batman go up against one or two villians that we have a huge knowledge of. He'll use their gimmicks against them and they'll be stopped, be back for the sequel and/or die. Batman will be all ******** and brooding and then get over it and kick ass. Expect many iconic shots and for the villian to be more interesting and marketable than Batman himself. Cue for more of the same inspiring music and everyone will be pleasantly content. Some will have wanted more, others less. Arguments will ensue because an individual's Batman wasn't portayed properly.

10 years from now they'll go back to camp and the cycle will inevitably repeat. But since the character of Batman can take any shape or form someone molds him/the story in it will outlive us all.

We've been over this for over 20 years now. It has ALL been done.

 

[RustyCage]

You're still just overgeneralizing. But the question is, what's your point? Look at the comics. Look at how many times they use the same characters and renew everything or spin new stories with what could be crudely generalized as 'the same thing over and over again'.

This is a new series for the films and it approaches a lot of things very differently than it's predecessors. That in itself gives us lots to look forward to. For example, imagine how much different the Riddler will be, what they might make him do, and how interesting they can make him. Etcetera, etcetera.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

You're still just overgeneralizing. But the question is, what's your point? Look at the comics. Look at how many times they use the same characters and renew everything or spin new stories with what could be crudely generalized as 'the same thing over and over again'.

This is a new series for the films and it approaches a lot of things very differently than it's predecessors. That in itself gives us lots to look forward to. For example, imagine how much different the Riddler will be, what they might make him do, and how interesting they can make him. Etcetera, etcetera.

DOWN RUSTY! <Kicks>

Now Rusty, my dear Rusty please don't confuse overgeneralization to that of reality. Especially when the rational (not overgeneralizing) individual knows this to be true. Next movie is announced, we'll discuss it just like TDK before it. Some will like it, others will dislike where it's headed. Most will be completely wrong unless the inevitable script leak leaks early. Movie will come out and we'll all gasp at how dark and complex it was or how boring and long it felt.

Then we'll focus on BATMAN 4 (or 8 depending how you look at the series) which doesn't come out in awhile.

I'll most likely join in but it's fun taking a step back and observing, er, overgeneralizing how stupid this all is.

amirite?

 

[david icke]

No, there is still much room for improvement, we have not had a perfect Batman movie yet. TDK came close, but for me it peaks with the hospital bombing, after that it's still a very fine movie with a great ending, but I would like one that was akin to Empire strikes back, where the momentum and quality is kept up until the very end of the movie.

Even though nolan has already used the best villan, there is still reason enough that we can get an even better BM movie than TDK, it all depends on the story, and there are aspects that can be done better, eg hand to hand combat, and just getting some more mileage out of Batman himself, having him used to his full potential, scary, deperate, pushing himself to the brink, this is what should be in the next one. BM has to be the absolute focus of the next movie, something like TDKR, the best in depth BM character study on film, while he is actually BM, unlike in BB.

 

[Jahu-Momus]

Does anyone else think its weird to be saying that Selina should be a love interest and human contact for Bruce after Rachel's death? Cause I think it would in a way belittle Rachel's death to introduce a whole new love interest in the very next movie. I'm not saying you can't have her, but make her more persistent for Bruce but don't have him have feelings back just yet.

 

[RustyCage]

Does anyone else think its weird to be saying that Selina should be a love interest and human contact for Bruce after Rachel's death? Cause I think it would in a way belittle Rachel's death to introduce a whole new love interest in the very next movie. I'm not saying you can't have her, but make her more persistent for Bruce but don't have him have feelings back just yet.

Sounds fine to me.

Here's hoping for a BB4 to continue her story with him.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I dont see it working at all that way. If dick is going to appear in the movie at fourteen and not become robin until he's 21 there's no point in even adding the character in.

Dick was like 8 years old when bruce found him in the comicbooks. I say he meets Bruce when he's like 11 or twelve. He should end up helping Bruce in some way before he becomes robin, to show him he actually has potential. Bruce puts him through training and in the next movie, tim is like 14 or 15 as robin.

First: Dick or Tim?
Second: To me, this is fundamentally wrong, because the stubborn, "inmovable object" Bruce is, would not... would NOT... put an underage kid in danger to fight alongside him. It's a danger to the kid, it's a danger to himself, it's a danger to the criminals he's trying to aprehend without killing. Not to mention the assault on credibility that is a 14-year-old fighting crime. In Nolan's world Bruce trained for something close to 7 years. How could an underage kid need any less?
So, it's an assault on the series credibility, and a disgrace on a so far consistent portrayal of Bruce's character. And for what? To see a teenage Robin and please a section of the fan base? I'm no fan of the character, I'm no fan of the stories that present it, I believe it has a terribly bad effect on Batman (in the vein of Harley's effects on the Joker), and all that in Nolan's version more than any other. Like I said, I believe Robin is a free electron in the mythos, easy to dispose of to potentiate other characters that could do his job even better than him.

And despite all of that, I'm willing to concedde that he is quite important and dear to many fans and that he could be in the current series in the right moment with the proper adaptation... I repeat, with the proper adaptation. Is an 18-21 year old Robin too much for you? Well, a dilluted Batman with a side-kick is too much for me. Both sides should meet halfway to get some compromise.

If Dick doesnt even become robin until he's 21 he might as well take over for bruce as batman. Robin shouldnt even be an adult character anyway that was one of my main problems with batman forever and batman and robin. It should be done the right way: fist Dick, then Jason, and then later Tim.

I'll just say this... Just because that's the way it is in the comics doesn't mean it is the right way. Certainly not.

Does anyone else think its weird to be saying that Selina should be a love interest and human contact for Bruce after Rachel's death? Cause I think it would in a way belittle Rachel's death to introduce a whole new love interest in the very next movie. I'm not saying you can't have her, but make her more persistent for Bruce but don't have him have feelings back just yet.

This is not the place to argue this, but well... I'm not sure Bruce was in love with Rachel at all. Compare the way Dent and Bruce related to her. Bruce seemed much more in love with the idea of being in a relationship, but they had severe irreconcilable differences and he was in denial. More to the point, he was totally cold about her. And he may grieve her now because they were close and he loved her, in a way, but Catwoman, being almost Rachel's COMPLETE opposite, can tap into Bruce's emotions much more effectively than Rachel. She wouldn't take her place, and it would be a very... VERY bumpy ride.

But Catwoman wouldn't be in the film BECAUSE Rachel's dead and wee need "the next love interest". No. She should be in, first and foremost, because she's a character that shakes Bruce. As an opponent, as someone with a different ideology, as someone who eludes him and sometimes helps him but hinders his efforts in others, as an important part of the mythos, and yes, as a love interest. Remember what Nolan did the Joker? How he used him to the max, playing most of the Joker's qualities in the film? That's what I want done with Catwoman, and since she's a very rich character, it shouldn't be difficult to do.

 

[cin0]

Elseworlds? Batman of the Future? Legends of Batman? These are things we have seen before in other mediums that no one wants to see on the big screen. Something more radical like changing Batman's race, sexual preference, or ideals? How about make him a villian?

No, those things won't happen because people don't like drastic change, even if it's exciting and new. This thread is evidence of that.

Come on. Batman 3 (or seven, depending how you look at the series) will have Batman go up against one or two villians that we have a huge knowledge of. He'll use their gimmicks against them and they'll be stopped, be back for the sequel and/or die. Batman will be all ******** and brooding and then get over it and kick ass. Expect many iconic shots and for the villian to be more interesting and marketable than Batman himself. Cue for more of the same inspiring music and everyone will be pleasantly content. Some will have wanted more, others less. Arguments will ensue because an individual's Batman wasn't portayed properly.

10 years from now they'll go back to camp and the cycle will inevitably repeat. But since the character of Batman can take any shape or form someone molds him/the story in it will outlive us all.

We've been over this for over 20 years now. It has ALL been done.

Thats just ignorant. if everybody thought like u there be no point in ever making movies again or remaking stuff that's already been done. since we've seen everything lets just not make anymore comic books either.

There is so much more to be done. and so far the only real villians we've seen are penguin, catwoman, twoface, ra's,mr. freeze, poison ivy and the joker. y would we want to stop there when havent even gotten a chance to see batman really fight somebody like clayface or bane.

Its far from all being done. stories are meant to be told more than once. y dont u stop breathing because everyone has already seen u do that.

 

[RustyCage]

I repeat, with the proper adaptation. Is an 18-21 year old Robin too much for you? Well, a dilluted Batman with a side-kick is too much for me. Both sides should meet halfway to get some compromise.

I'll just say this... Just because that's the way it is in the comics doesn't mean it is the right way. Certainly not.

This is not the place to argue this, but well... I'm not sure Bruce was in love with Rachel at all. Compare the way Dent and Bruce related to her. Bruce seemed much more in love with the idea of being in a relationship, but they had severe irreconcilable differences and he was in denial. More to the point, he was totally cold about her. And he may grieve her now because they were close and he loved her, in a way, but Catwoman, being almost Rachel's COMPLETE opposite, can tap into Bruce's emotions much more effectively than Rachel. She wouldn't take her place, and it would be a very... VERY bumpy ride.

I'm considering starting a Gaius fanclub after that.

But Catwoman wouldn't be in the film BECAUSE Rachel's dead and wee need "the next love interest". No. She should be in, first and foremost, she's a character that shakes Bruce. As an opponent, as someone with a different ideology, as someone who eludes him and sometimes helps him but hinders his efforts in others, as an important part of the mythos, and yes, as a love interest. Remember what Nolan did the Joker? How it used him to the max, playing most of the Joker's qualities in the film? That's what I want done with Catwoman, and since she's a very rich character, it shouldn't be difficult to do.

EXACTLY! I dunno why most people think she's just a 'filler love interest' or a replacement. She plays a very important role - and since Bruce is now a heavily burdened outcast, she would be immeasurably appropriate for all the reasons you just described and maybe more.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Thats just ignorant. if everybody thought like u there be no point in ever making movies again or remaking stuff that's already been done.

I think we was being facetious and criticizing someone else, man.

 

[H.A.R.D.A.C.]

y would we want to stop there when havent even gotten a chance to see batman really fight somebody like clayface or bane.

Bane has been done, not the we would have liked him to be portrayed, but he's been done. Clayface won't be done in this series.

Its far from all being done. stories are meant to be told more than once. y dont u stop breathing because everyone has already seen u do that.

Ouch, even to a guy like me that's just COLD.

 

[itsthebatman]

It's been hinted at in the comics that Joker knows Bruce Wayne is Batman, too.

More than just hinted at in R.I.P., no?

 

[raybia]

Elseworlds? Batman of the Future? Legends of Batman? These are things we have seen before in other mediums that no one wants to see on the big screen. Something more radical like changing Batman's race, sexual preference, or ideals? How about make him a villian?

No, those things won't happen because people don't like drastic change, even if it's exciting and new. This thread is evidence of that.

Come on. Batman 3 (or seven, depending how you look at the series) will have Batman go up against one or two villians that we have a huge knowledge of. He'll use their gimmicks against them and they'll be stopped, be back for the sequel and/or die. Batman will be all ******** and brooding and then get over it and kick ass. Expect many iconic shots and for the villian to be more interesting and marketable than Batman himself. Cue for more of the same inspiring music and everyone will be pleasantly content. Some will have wanted more, others less. Arguments will ensue because an individual's Batman wasn't portayed properly.

10 years from now they'll go back to camp and the cycle will inevitably repeat. But since the character of Batman can take any shape or form someone molds him/the story in it will outlive us all.

We've been over this for over 20 years now. It has ALL been done.

Wow, I don't think I care whether I see another Batman movie now.

 

[Two-Face]

Edit.

 

[Drz]

More than just hinted at in R.I.P., no?

It's been implied since Death in a Family. Joker simply doesn't CARE the Bruce Wayne persona. Infact he has PROTECTED that idea in recent media. From The Dark Knight to Batman: Brave and Bold. Joker needs his Batman to complete him.

 

[The Joker]

In the Laughing Fish story he also warned Rupert Thorne not to try and find out Batman's identity from Hugo Strange, because he doesn't want Batman's identity to ever be ousted, as it would take away his perfect foe.

 

[cin0]

Bane has been done, not the we would have liked him to be portrayed, but he's been done. Clayface won't be done in this series.



Ouch, even to a guy like me that's just COLD.

This time around it can be done right, there's something else that hasnt been done right there.

Im only speakin the truth no disrespect.

 

[cin0]

First: Dick or Tim?
Second: To me, this is fundamentally wrong, because the stubborn, "inmovable object" Bruce is, would not... would NOT... put an underage kid in danger to fight alongside him. It's a danger to the kid, it's a danger to himself, it's a danger to the criminals he's trying to aprehend without killing. Not to mention the assault on credibility that is a 14-year-old fighting crime. In Nolan's world Bruce trained for something close to 7 years. How could an underage kid need any less?
So, it's an assault on the series credibility, and a disgrace on a so far consistent portrayal of Bruce's character. And for what? To see a teenage Robin and please a section of the fan base? I'm no fan of the character, I'm no fan of the stories that present it, I believe it has a terribly bad effect on Batman (in the vein of Harley's effects on the Joker), and all that in Nolan's version more than any other. Like I said, I believe Robin is a free electron in the mythos, easy to dispose of to potentiate other characters that could do his job even better than him.

And despite all of that, I'm willing to concedde that he is quite important and dear to many fans and that he could be in the current series in the right moment with the proper adaptation... I repeat, with the proper adaptation. Is an 18-21 year old Robin too much for you? Well, a dilluted Batman with a side-kick is too much for me. Both sides should meet halfway to get some compromise.



I'll just say this... Just because that's the way it is in the comics doesn't mean it is the right way. Certainly not.

I honestly do not see the point in bringing either of them along if they wont even see any action untill 21. 15 is definitley not too young to be fighting crime. i think that would be fair compromise instead of him being between the ages of 8-12. The whole point of dick showing up would be that bruce actually sees himself in him and this kid can make as big a difference as him. training him to fight wouldnt be too much, and most teenagers are rebelious anyways, so it wouldnt be hard to believe that dick would decide to help and that there would be nothing bruce could really do to stop him. im sure u've seen batman forever. he couldnt even except dick's help all the way up to the end of the movie. dick changes him and shows him the he is good enough to do it no matter what age he is. and just in case u misunderstood 8-15 or sixteen is like 7 years.

 

[Rodrigo90]

In the Laughing Fish story he also warned Rupert Thorne not to try and find out Batman's identity from Hugo Strange, because he doesn't want Batman's identity to ever be ousted, as it would take away his perfect foe.

Trivia. That was adapted from Strange Apparitions.

 

[El Payaso]

Again, why would it be weird if Bruce adopted Dick as a teenager? They both went through similar traumatic events in their lives and Bruce needed Dick because, lets be honest, he's never really had that kind of connection with. How about we make Dick 14-16 years old, he's a bright kid with a sarcastic mouth and wonders where Bruce goes all the time. He doesn't have to be in costume, and we don't really need the allusions to Robin. I'd be satisfied with Dick Grayson being Dick Grayson. This way, we get another set of emotions for Bruce. In Begins, it was fear and anger, then in TDK we got to see his frustration and self doubt. If Dick joins, we can see something close to a father and understanding that we would only see from Alfred.

Bruce is a bachelor that’s known as being a drunk womanizer that takes dips with models at restaurants and once, just because he got too much booze for his birthday, burnt his mansion down. That is why he would never be allowed to adopt, when there are so many normal families with a mother and a father.

That said, a family, a serious romance are things that Bruce knows he’s not allowed to have unless he quits being Batman.

I’m sure there a lots of orphans who share similar feelings with Bruce, but he can’t take them in and put them in that kind of risky outlaw life he chose. As I said before, if he cares so much about orphans he better fund an orphanage.

Why not? Why are we so limited? Do you think Nolan limits himself this way?

Yes. He limits himself from such conceots as Robin the same way he limits himself from any other campy element. And thank God he does.

 

[El Payaso]

You're missing something though, this is a movie. You're trying to add realism to your reasoning saying how Robin wouldn't work yet you don't add it to Nolan's current Batman.

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?

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.

3.) Bruce is always the center of attention? How come no one noticed his convo with Ras, especially the guest that introduces him?

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?

The point is, you could have this "realistic" reasoning for Robin also, just like we do for Batman, Joker, Alfred, Scarecrow, etc.

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.

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.

I love Batman, Joker, Robin, Two-Face, Riddler, Penguin, Clayface, Croc, almost all of them. We've seen dark, light, campy, violent, and serious interpretations of all of them.

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.

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?

Realism is not the core problem. It's more that Robin is just an absurd character to put nexct to Batman. Little less than Bat-mite. It's absurd to hang out with a colorful teenager when you're Batman; the mere character goes against everything Batman is (when he's taken as a serious dark character).

In the comics Batman's suit has kevlar lining so it protects him from bullets. Recently [BLACKOUT]Jason Todd shot Dick (who is currently Batman) point blank to the chest and it only messed up the suit's outer layer. But it hurt like hell and that's why he did it.
[/BLACKOUT]

Is this kevlar thing pre or post 1989? Because if it&#8217;s post then we can start thanking movies for improvements in comics. As I do when they don&#8217;t include Robin.

Why do we waste time on this matter? Who cares if he did or didnt audition?

I do. Specially when people try to make a case out of Bale wanting to be Robin in the past.

But my point was that if what Bale said wasn&#8217;t true someone would have said so months ago.

You have a point, but i dont think it should apply on Robin. He is very important to the mythos, he is Batman's heir after all, and he should be introduced at some point.

Batman needing a heir that is someone like him (an outlaw in a costume) is something that&#8217;s not a must. Bruce seeing his heir in Dent &#8211; that is, a public figure &#8211; was a much better idea.

People should already have guessed that Bruce might be Batman. Vicky Vale recently figured it out by putting the pieces together. Bruce's body was full of scars and "polo" didnt seem like a truthful explanation. Then she noticed Tim with wounds on his face and she thought that he cant be playing polo as well. The point is that she figured it out, but not because its the realistic thing to do, but because the writers wanted her to.
So no matter how lame the disguise or the excuses that Bruce gives, its always down to the writers and what they want to do. I mean, putting on glasses or wearing a domino mask wouldnt fly in real life, so treat this franchise for what it is: A comic book franchise.

A comic book MOVIE. And as such not everything that writers write works when a certain amouint of believability is required. In Nolan&#8217;s case he even showed what many of us were thinking about; how is that no one notices that the bat-car (Tumbler, I don&#8217;t call it Batmobile) came from Wayne Enterprises. So Bruce adopting a child - which no judge would allow &#8211; and then Batman &#8220;coincidentally&#8221; getting a teenager sidekick is not something that the writers can just ignore.