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

[Mr. Earle]

Thats the point though adding robin does make it more absurd. Batman is not just like every other superhero the fact he doesn't have superpowers speaks volumes alone of that.

Of course batman is not realistic but he has that human element that grounds him to earth more than a superman or green lantern and i think that's what attracts so many people. I'll say in the comics robin can work better because things in general are very hightened where a young boy can be made to look like he can kick huge thug ass.

However in a non stylized (i.e. frank miller/zack snyder) film as we have with Nolan, the visual absurdity of introducing robin would far overshadow any other unrealistic thing you would notice in the film. It would be a huge distraction.

Being Batman is a superpower in itself. Batman is the most hax superhero of them all.

Exactly.

Batman's implausibility has nothing to do. It is what you put next to an implausibility that you want to look plausible what can ruin anything.

I could go and defend bat-myte because of Batman being already absurd (or whatever the word you want to use).

Robin is absurd (next to Batman) and Batman is implausible (by itself). Fiction doesn't automatically equal absurd.

I wouldn't mind to see a teenager human superhero called Robin. But a colorful sidekick kid next to what Batman is not convincing at all. No, not even if Batman looks implausible.

I get the feeling that half of the people in here would discard half of the mythos as "cheesy", "inappropriate" or "over the top". If people are looking for a strictly gritty and realistic superhero, they should look somewhere else. Batman is a lot more than that and he doesnt need justifications like "he's a dude in a batsuit, what's wrong with Robin". Robin is an integral part of the mythos, take it or leave it.

 

[El Payaso]

I get the feeling that half of the people in here would discard half of the mythos as "cheesy", "inappropriate" or "over the top".

If half of Batman mythos is "cheesy", "inappropriate" or "over the top" some of us would. Robin, Batgirl or Batmyte are those things no matter how many times they've been in comics.

If people are looking for a strictly gritty and realistic superhero, they should look somewhere else.

Everyone knows that with regards to superheroes, when we talk about dark and gritty we look presicely at Batman.

If you like colorful, uplifting and family-friendly you go Superman or Spiderman.

Batman is a lot more than that and he doesnt need justifications like "he's a dude in a batsuit, what's wrong with Robin". Robin is an integral part of the mythos, take it or leave it.

We leave Robin out. As a character Batman has historically and repeatedly proven to work better in movies without him.

 

[Mr. Earle]

If half of Batman mythos is "cheesy", "inappropriate" or "over the top" some of us would. Robin, Batgirl or Batmyte are those things no matter how many times they've been in comics.

People in here only like the Batman we see in Detective Comics, which is only one of the aspects of the character. And that is because they only know the character from the movies.
Batman is a lot more than that. His core is inherently unrealistic and cheesy, and while sometimes he is beating up mobsters, other times he is duking it out with aliens on distant planets.
Robin isnt just a character in the mythos. He is perhaps more important than the Joker, and if Robin is cheesy, then so is 90% of Batman's rogue's gallery.

If you like colorful, uplifting and family-friendly you go Superman or Spiderman.

And Robin makes it uplifting and family friendly?

We leave Robin out. As a character Batman has historically and repeatedly proven to work better in movies without him.

You re basing this on Schumacher's fiasco? I could make the same arguement about Mr. Freeze:
"As a character Freeze has historically and repeatedly proven to suck in live action movies."
Laughable arguement at best.

 

[Cain]

Look at comics, they made Damian Wayne as Robin & Dick Grayson as Batman. WTF???

I'm not even gonna bother...

 

[El Payaso]

People in here only like the Batman we see in Detective Comics, which is only one of the aspects of the character. And that is because they only know the character from the movies.

Is this an assumption to justify something?

Batman is a lot more than that.

And a lot more than Robin.

His core is inherently unrealistic and cheesy, and while sometimes he is beating up mobsters, other times he is duking it out with aliens on distant planets.

And thanks God he has evolved from there.

Robin isnt just a character in the mythos. He is perhaps more important than the Joker, and if Robin is cheesy, then so is 90% of Batman's rogue's gallery.

While funny, Joker is hardly cheesey. And even so it has been absolutely a complement to Batman which Robin is not.

You can explore certain aspects with Robin, okay. With Joker you have the Ying for the Yang.

And Robin makes it uplifting and family friendly?

It's an absolute step towards it, yes.

You re basing this on Schumacher's fiasco? I could make the same arguement about Mr. Freeze:
"As a character Freeze has historically and repeatedly proven to suck in live action movies."
Laughable arguement at best.

Indeed, since Freeze being in just one movie cannot be called "historically" nor "repeatedly" anything. As to Robin? You have Schumacher, the 1966 series and two previous incarnations.

That said, I didn't say "Robin sucks," I said "As a character Batman has historically and repeatedly proven to work better in movies without him."

 

[Mr. Earle]

And a lot more than Robin.

Superman is a lot more than Lois. How would you feel if some fans were asking for her removal from the mythos for whatever reason?

And thanks God he has evolved from there.

O'RLY?

While funny, Joker is hardly cheesey. And even so it has been absolutely a complement to Batman which Robin is not.

I beg to differ.

That said, I didn't say "Robin sucks," I said "As a character Batman has historically and repeatedly proven to work better in movies without him."

All he needs is to be adapted faithfully to the comics. And now that i think about it, Schumacher almost did that. Robin was one of the good parts of Forever.

 

[El Payaso]

Superman is a lot more than Lois. How would you feel if some fans were asking for her removal from the mythos for whatever reason?

If that reason were that Lois was a teenager that would put themes and aesthetics in Superman that are completely strange to him, then by all mjeans yes.

O'RLY?

Haha yes. Well, more power to the notion that not everything in comics should be carried to the silver screen.

All he needs is to be adapted faithfully to the comics

That would mean a child in elf shoes and a yellow cape. That's everything Batman in movies does not need.

And now that i think about it, Schumacher almost did that. Robin was one of the good parts of Forever.

Yes, now given what BF was that's not the greatest achievement ever. But it was the family-friendly and cheesey tone of BF what made Robin much more buyable there.

 

[hatebox]

I'm glad the Batman and Robin film was such a travesty, because if nothing else it'll put any sane director or studio off including Robin for a very long time.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't mind if Robin isn't in Nolan's films, but at the same time it bothers me that an important character like Dick Grayson isn't in the films. I want him in the films, but at the same time you can't have in the films without people believing he's going to become Robin or Nightwing.

What annoys me the most is that people say you can't have Robin/Nightwing in a film without ruining it. It is possible to have Robin in a Batman film, even Nolan's. If Nolan tried hard enough and really wanted to do it, he could place Robin in his film successfully. But here's the thing, why try so hard to incorporate Robin in a Batman film when a Batman film can be very successful without him with a great level of writing.

Its possible to add Robin, and though I feel a little uncomfortable about not having a character very important to the Batman Mythos, I won't lose sleep over it.

And Robin was one of better parts of Batman Forever. Despite the tone of the film, we've seen at least glimpses that you can have Robin in a film and have it dark. Too bad B&R made him incredibly whiny and annoying.


One question, how about instead of Robin, you go straight to Nightwing? The Dark Knight did show several scenes of vigilante bat-copies. What if one of them (Dick Grayson) actually catches Batman's eye? I'm just asking.

 

[Eros]

You thought that was absurd? Well, according to me... it wasn't.

No, lol. It was my mistake, I meant "Fiction doesn't automatically equal absurd" as someone suggested.

True But trying to act like one absurdity is different from the other is not logical. Dark Knight was a great movie, but it was fantasy it was fiction. the characters and situations are Fantastic and sometimes absurd. Its the story plot that allows people to realize beyond all this crazyness, this characters and situations are great.

 

[regwec]

Nightwing is one of those characters I just couldn't accept if their lengthy backstory was scrubbed away. Nightwing's identity as a character rests so heavily on his past as Robin that there would be only a very hazy road map for developing him as a new character.

 

[El Payaso]

True But trying to act like one absurdity is different from the other is not logical.

It's perfectly logical to differentiate things. One absurdity from another, like one book from another.

I don't react the same about the premise of a superhero movie even if it's that Gamma rays can turn you into a monster as I do about other kind of things that could be called absurdity such as a plothole or a stupid out of place one-liner.

Dark Knight was a great movie, but it was fantasy it was fiction. the characters and situations are Fantastic and sometimes absurd.

If anything in TDK was absurd it shouldn't have been. Absurdity was not planned in a movie like this. Not that it can't happen, but if anything in TDK ended up being absurd then it was a involuntary mistake. Or a Joker's joke, which within the character still makes sense.

 

[The Joker]

I'm glad the Batman and Robin film was such a travesty, because if nothing else it'll put any sane director or studio off including Robin for a very long time.

By that logic, Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy should be omitted from any movies, because they were as much a part of B&R as Robin was. Even Batman came across as stupid in that movie.

Any character can come across as bad with a terrible script. Look at Two Face and the Riddler in Forever. Both of them spent the movie trying to out ham eachother.

 

[Eros]

It's perfectly logical to differentiate things. One absurdity from another, like one book from another.

I don't react the same about the premise of a superhero movie even if it's that Gamma rays can turn you into a monster as I do about other kind of things that could be called absurdity such as a plothole or a stupid out of place one-liner.



If anything in TDK was absurd it shouldn't have been. Absurdity was not planned in a movie like this. Not that it can't happen, but if anything in TDK ended up being absurd then it was a involuntary mistake. Or a Joker's joke, which within the character still makes sense.

The entire concept of Batman is upsurd dude, thus everything that happens in Dark knight is equally Upsuard.
-Crazy Clown Face terrorist bent on casueing choas
-Billionare Play boy fighting crime In Bat suit
- Police Lt and DA working with a Rogue Viglante
- Batmans inability to get tired or sweaty running in Rubber suit all night
-The ENTIRE PLOT OF THE MOVIE IS UPSURD
- the way criminals stand thier and let Batman hit him, instead of just shooting him.

This stuff is not going ot happen in Real life most likely, you seem to think that The Dark Knight was based on "Real world", but everything and I mean everything in the movie is fantastic.

 

[El Payaso]

The entire concept of Batman is upsurd dude, thus everything that happens in Dark knight is equally Upsuard.
-Crazy Clown Face terrorist bent on casueing choas
-Billionare Play boy fighting crime In Bat suit
- Police Lt and DA working with a Rogue Viglante
- Batmans inability to get tired or sweaty running in Rubber suit all night
-The ENTIRE PLOT OF THE MOVIE IS UPSURD
- the way criminals stand thier and let Batman hit him, instead of just shooting him.

This stuff is not going ot happen in Real life most likely, you seem to think that The Dark Knight was based on "Real world", but everything and I mean everything in the movie is fantastic.

Again you equal fantastic and absurd and they're not the same thing.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think alot of you are missing the absurdity point. Audiences can look at batman on screen and ignore how absurd the character is because audiences are acustomed to seeing men in costumes or outfits fighting cirminals or doing stunts. Like any action film that works on screen but is absurd in real life.

However no one have ever been accustomed to seeing a flamboyantly dressed child fighting criminals and put in dangerous situations. Not to mention that child fighting side by side with a grown man as partner.

 

[Cain]

By the same token a lot of you cats completely forget that Robin's costume would not necessarily look like this if adapted to the silver screen sometime this decade

after all the last time he was brought to live action he didn't look a damn thing like that yet was still recognizable as Robin. Also of course Batman's movie costume looks nothing like the one in this pic as well. But whatever though, it is what it is.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The problem is that the general audience has been exposed to serious batman for too long and they would probably have a problem with not only Robin, but half his rogues gallery. And its a shame that people can accept space monks with laser swords, but cant accept Batman for what he is, and can only digest a certain "serious-ed" version of him.

 

[regwec]

Here's a question; what makes Nolan's Batman less "Batmanny" than Frank Miller's Batman from "Year One"?

I don't have an opinion on this, I'm just interested to know your views.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Here's a question; what makes Nolan's Batman less "Batmanny" than Frank Miller's Batman from "Year One"?

I don't have an opinion on this, I'm just interested to know your views.

Its that Miller's Year One is supposed to be the origin story of the mythos, while the Nolanverse is just a serious and realistic (and frankly bland) take on Batman. Y.O is part of the Batman canon, with Batman recently fighting Darkseid. The Nolanverse is a restrictive vision of the character, accentuating his crime drama aspect the way Burton did with the gothic and nightmare fuel aspects in Returns.

That said its no less valid than any other version of the character. My problem is that a more canon take on the character by a director like Del Toro, Abraams or even Favreau would have been a million times better and more exciting to watch. Why is Batman competing with Public Enemies and Heat when it should be competing with Ironman, Spiderman and Superman?

Some stories in Detective Comics are very close to the Nolanverse, but they are just some stories in Bruce's life. Next week he could be fighting ManBat or aliens. So you see, a more canon Batmanverse doesnt forbid the director from telling a street level story, but a street level batmanverse forbids the director from telling a more superheroic story or include Robin, or other characters.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Year One Batman relied on technology less and ran around in a suit that wasn't even bulletproof. He didn't have many of the Batman items he would be famous for and barely made it out alive in with several situations.

I'm really worried about Robin not being in a Batman film because it will happen. Maybe not the next film, but someone is going to introduce Dick Grayson in some way. Its not like he will never be in a Batman film again. Batgirl, Tim Drake, Jason Todd, Stephanie Brown, and even Terry McGinnis (haha especially Terry McGinnis) on the other hand.......

 

[Two-Face]

I'm not even gonna bother...

To me there is ONLY one Batman that is Bruce in the suit.

 

[Mr. Earle]

To me there is ONLY one Batman that is Bruce in the suit.

Hearing about it and reading it are two different things. If you had followed the comics you'd be itching to see Dick claim his birthright. Bruce is and will always be THE Batman, but others can step in and keep the legend alive when he is gone. Dick Grayson has proven himself a worthy successor. He has made some really crappy mistakes that he wouldnt have made as Nightwing but i think that they re trying to convey that he is different than Bruce and he doesnt plan like him. He is an acrobat and he jumps over whatever comes his way.

 

[regwec]

To be fair, Dick wouldn't have invented Brother Eye or given Ra's al Ghul the protocols to kill the JLA, either. Bruce is like a tragic hero- his strengths are sometimes his undoing.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Year One Batman relied on technology less and ran around in a suit that wasn't even bulletproof. He didn't have many of the Batman items he would be famous for and barely made it out alive in with several situations.

I'm really worried about Robin not being in a Batman film because it will happen. Maybe not the next film, but someone is going to introduce Dick Grayson in some way. Its not like he will never be in a Batman film again. Batgirl, Tim Drake, Jason Todd, Stephanie Brown, and even Terry McGinnis (haha especially Terry McGinnis) on the other hand.......

Well he defenetly had technology. Anyone forget the bat remote? the scene that begins pretty much took right from the pages.