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

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The only reason why Robin "won't get a chance to be utilized" is because Nolan refused to do so.

It has nothing to do with timeframes, because otherwise Sacrecrow shouldn't have been there first than Joker and Catwoman.

And then again Rachel Dawes is an unexistant character.

Robin could have been easily introduced. Or at least Dick Grayson. But Nolan doesn't think it's a good idea.



Of course he doesn't. He just knows where the character works and where he doesn't.



And the point is, he doesn't want.

Agreed. I said that.

"For now" is 'as long as he's directing.' If Nolan were to direct six movies, no matter what timeframe that would be, Robin wouldn't be there.

I don't think any of us can make that assumption whether if Nolan was around longer Robin would be in the films

That is a dark and serious story.

Its been proven in the books that Robin can be stories and they can be serious.

One, because it has never worked and two because the character adds some elements that are contradictory to the dark lonely gritty nature of Batman.

It has worked on film. For Batman Forever, I like to think it both worked for and against the movie, but more for than against. What you had are some serious scenes between Bruce and Dick which were butchered by Joel Schumacher. But I must admit Dick did come off as a bit whiny in some parts (definitely not as much as in B&R).

Robin would've been even better if some scenes between them weren't cut, such as the scenes in which Robin's thirst for revenge and his desire to kill two-face makes him questions Batman's killing of criminals that were in Batman Returns and Batman. He also caused Bruce to trigger his repressed memories but that was cut too.

But even with the mistakes that were made it shouldn't be an example of why it can't work on film ever again, I mean look at that avatar. With that logic Batman Begins shouldn't have been made because Batman was presented as campy in his film and it failed. I mean, retooling worked for Bucky in the comics and it worked for even Robin in the comics with Dark Victory which went very worked very well as a sequel to The Long Halloween, a huge inspiration for TDK, which itself was a sequel to Year One, a huge inspiration for Batman Begins.

And those elements were there to keep Bruce from going in too deep. Robin is one of Bruce's achors to humanity. That would be something Nolan would love to use.

You can't possibly tell me that if Nolan announced he was using Robin tomorrow that most people would be pissed.

I'm not debating that Nolan should use him. I just disagree at the notion that having Robin in a Batman film is a Batman movie killer and that it will never work.

 

[hatebox]

The sheer variety of Batman's mythology means you can effectively pick and choose what aspects and eras of the character you like most. Suffice it to say, I much prefer my Batman sans Robin.

 

[ALP]

Robin won't be in Nolan's world because the colors of his costume are too unrealistic.

 

[Jumpin' Jack]

you ALP are WRONG!

 

[Brother Jack]

you ALP are WRONG!

He's joking (I think).

 

[ElMariachi]

Robin has absolutely no place in another Batman movie. The idea of a child fighting crime in the Nolan universe would be silly and borderline camp. It works in the comics, but then again, so does Wolverine wearing yellow. Alfred, Lucius, and Gordon are enough supporting characters in my opinion.

 

[ALP]

Robin has absolutely no place in another Batman movie. The idea of a child fighting crime in the Nolan universe would be silly and borderline camp. It works in the comics, but then again, so does Wolverine wearing yellow. Alfred, Lucius, and Gordon are enough supporting characters in my opinion.

Almost as borderline camp as a wackjob in a cheap purple suit with green hair, chalk white makeup, and way too much lipstick running around laughing manically? That would be like a deranged geisha

 

[KalMart]

I'd rather see them try to do Batmite before Robin....just out of morbid curiosity.


And if they can make that work, then it should leave the door wide open for Robin to be f'in amazing.

 

[El Payaso]

Agreed. I said that.

I was just replying to ALP.

I don't think any of us can make that assumption whether if Nolan was around longer Robin would be in the films

One of the articles says "Nolan assured fans that Robin won't make an appearance, at least not on his watch."

That means that as long as he's involved Robin won't be there.

Its been proven in the books that Robin can be stories and they can be serious.

That's why I said I don't mind Robin in comics and cartoons. Which are different than real action movies.

It has worked on film. For Batman Forever, I like to think it both worked for and against the movie, but more for than against. What you had are some serious scenes between Bruce and Dick which were butchered by Joel Schumacher. But I must admit Dick did come off as a bit whiny in some parts (definitely not as much as in B&R).

Robin would've been even better if some scenes between them weren't cut, such as the scenes in which Robin's thirst for revenge and his desire to kill two-face makes him questions Batman's killing of criminals that were in Batman Returns and Batman. He also caused Bruce to trigger his repressed memories but that was cut too.

But even with the mistakes that were made it shouldn't be an example of why it can't work on film ever again,

It was mostly Dick Grayson what worked in BF. Because he wasn't a kid to be Bruce's son but a 18-20 year old man.

Once he got in his Robin suit, the character went downfall.

Now, we're talking about a movie that's all about neon, one-liners and over-the-top clowny villiains. Anything that smelt like serious was welcomed. But some of us are talking about a serious approach.

I mean look at that avatar. With that logic Batman Begins shouldn't have been made because Batman was presented as campy in his film and it failed.

And it was hard... for Batman 89 that is... to convince the world that Batman could be a serious character. But it did and we can still enjoy a black armoured-suit dark gritty Batman like the one that started in 1989. And on the third movie Robin had his chance and barely convinced good directors, such as Nolan, to revisit the character.

That said... you were talking about the 1966 series right? Did it fail? Really?

I mean, retooling worked for Bucky in the comics and it worked for even Robin in the comics with Dark Victory which went very worked very well as a sequel to The Long Halloween, a huge inspiration for TDK, which itself was a sequel to Year One, a huge inspiration for Batman Begins.

Comics =/= movies

And those elements were there to keep Bruce from going in too deep. Robin is one of Bruce's achors to humanity. That would be something Nolan would love to use.

If Nolan would love it he could have used it - or he could in the next movie. But he didn't, and he won't. So I doubt that he would 'love' it.

Batman has already enough characters next to him to anchor him to his humanity.

You can't possibly tell me that if Nolan announced he was using Robin tomorrow that most people would be pissed.

You can't possibly tell me that if Nolan announced he was using Robin tomorrow that most people would be glad.

But people still remembers Schumacher's movies and that's what Robin is attached to for most people. So I can't speak for everyone but, if I had to, I'd put my money on most people being pissed off.

That said, for what it's worth, in this very thread most people would be pissed off.

I'm not debating that Nolan should use him. I just disagree at the notion that having Robin in a Batman film is a Batman movie killer and that it will never work.

It would never work as well as having a solo Batman.

Robin won't be in Nolan's world because the colors of his costume are too unrealistic.

Almost as borderline camp as a wackjob in a cheap purple suit with green hair, chalk white makeup, and way too much lipstick running around laughing manically? That would be like a deranged geisha

Or would be like Pogo the clown meets anarchism.

But it's hard enough to bring real seriousness to the concept of Batman just to throw a boy in red suit next to him.

One of them is possible to keep over the level of campiness, but you add one next to the other and they both sink.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I was just replying to ALP.



One of the articles says "Nolan assured fans that Robin won't make an appearance, at least not on his watch."

That means that as long as he's involved Robin won't be there.



That's why I said I don't mind Robin in comics and cartoons. Which are different than real action movies.



It was mostly Dick Grayson what worked in BF. Because he wasn't a kid to be Bruce's son but a 18-20 year old man.

Once he got in his Robin suit, the character went downfall.

Now, we're talking about a movie that's all about neon, one-liners and over-the-top clowny villiains. Anything that smelt like serious was welcomed. But some of us are talking about a serious approach.

I believe Robin could work for a serious approach. I hated Schumacher as a Batman director who brought those elements into the series. I don't care what the studio said, I know it was him that took their words a little too far.

I had no problem with Dick being 17 (I always assumed he was 17 or otherwise Bruce wouldn't need to adopt him). I always felt that Dick would work better as a 15 or 16 year old.

And it was hard... for Batman 89 that is... to convince the world that Batman could be a serious character. But it did and we can still enjoy a black armoured-suit dark gritty Batman like the one that started in 1989. And on the third movie Robin had his chance and barely convinced good directors, such as Nolan, to revisit the character.

That said... you were talking about the 1966 series right? Did it fail? Really?

I won't say it failed. It did its job for what its worth. The problem with the show you mentioned in the paragraph before.

Comics =/= movies

Yeah but we're not getting the Bucky that was in the 1940s comics for obvious reasons. Like I said, I didn't have a problem with Dick's age in BF.

If Nolan would love it he could have used it - or he could in the next movie. But he didn't, and he won't. So I doubt that he would 'love' it.

Batman has already enough characters next to him to anchor him to his humanity.

None of them really, truly understands what Bruce went through but Dick. Dick is also mirror somewhat into Bruce's life. He suffers

You can't possibly tell me that if Nolan announced he was using Robin tomorrow that most people would be glad.

But people still remembers Schumacher's movies and that's what Robin is attached to for most people. So I can't speak for everyone but, if I had to, I'd put my money on most people being pissed off.

That said, for what it's worth, in this very thread most people would be pissed off.

I'm still under the impression that Nolan will have many people blindly follwing him no matter what does now at this point.

It would never work as well as having a solo Batman.

You have a point there. I appreciate the input

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Robin is essential to the Batman mythos. To ignore the character would be to ignore 70 years of continuity. Robin can be, and should be done. As far as a cinematic version of the character, Dick Grayson combined with Jason Todd and the costume of Damian Wayne would be perfect.

 

[KalMart]

Robin is essential to the Batman mythos. To ignore the character would be to ignore 70 years of continuity. Robin can be, and should be done. As far as a cinematic version of the character, Dick Grayson combined with Jason Todd and the costume of Damian Wayne would be perfect.

Just because a character from the Batman mythos isn't used in a movie doesn't mean that he/she is being deliberately ignored, though. It just may be that that story calls for different characters.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Just because a character from the Batman mythos isn't used in a movie doesn't mean that he/she is being deliberately ignored, though. It just may be that that story calls for different characters.

Robin is more important as a character than any villain. Since 1940, Robin has been at Batman's side in one way or another. The natural progression of Bruce Wayne's career as Batman is to make Dick Grayson his ward.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Double post.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Just because a character from the Batman mythos isn't used in a movie doesn't mean that he/she is being deliberately ignored, though. It just may be that that story calls for different characters.

And I completely agree though Nolan's vision doesn't call for Robin. I accept that. I just take issue with people saying Robin would never work on film when it did work before.

 

[LightningFlash]

Yah, let's bring in Robin about a year and a half into Batman's career!!!!!!!

 

[LightningFlash]

I just take issue with people saying Robin would never work on film when it did work before.

Hahahaha, which part? Batman Forever or Batman & Robin? Lol.

 

[KalMart]

Robin is more important as a character than any villain. Since 1940, Robin has been at Batman's side in one way or another. The natural progression of Bruce Wayne's career as Batman is to make Dick Grayson his ward.

Well, I'm assuming that there are a number of comics that have Batman but no Robin that work just fine, and if a filmmaker wants to make a Batman story without Robin, I don't think that automatically makes it any less of a Batman story. Just one that happens to not have Robin.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Hahahaha, which part? Batman Forever or Batman & Robin? Lol.

Take your pick. Here's a hint:

Spoiler

Its definitely not Batman and Robin.

 

[Crook]

Yah, let's bring in Robin about a year and a half into Batman's career!!!!!!!

Not too far off from the comic book timeline.

 

[ALP]

Hahahaha, which part? Batman Forever or Batman & Robin? Lol.

Neither.

Spoiler

Not too far off from the comic book timeline.

Not sure about Bob Kane's original run but in the contemporary comics continuity it is:

Batman Year One > Batman Man Who Laughs > Batman: Long Halloween > Batman Dark Victory

Robin is introduced in Dark Victory mid way, I estimate that is roughly less than or around 3 years into Batman's beginning.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Neither.

Spoiler

Not sure about Bob Kane's original run but in the contemporary comics continuity it is:

Batman Year One > Batman Man Who Laughs > Batman: Long Halloween > Batman Dark Victory

Robin is introduced in Dark Victory mid way, I estimate that is roughly less than or around 3 years into Batman's beginning.

Well in Bob Kane's run he was introduced before Batman #1. I believe it was Detective comics #38 even though I don't know the actual timeline.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The Marv Wolfman issues of Dick Grayson's origin were even called Batman: Year 3.

That about says it all.

Point is, want Robin or not, its a misconception that he only arrived once Bats was already a grizzled veteran. Whether going by that continuity, the Dark Victory continuity, original Kane continuity...Robin comes along relatively quickly.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Crisis makes it all the same continuity.

 

[LightningFlash]

Perhaps the next series will have Robin.