Batman Begins Now it's my turn: Doc's problems with Begins...

[DocLathropBrown]

He didn't. I know they ran with the idea based on some warped concept of what realism meant, but that was it.

So no, he didn't say it. And, I bolded that part because way to take the high road - isn't this the exact same behaviour you've been complaining about from the so-called Nolanites?

It's a double-edged sword. They were helping to prove my point. t:

As for him not saying it, I guess I'll take your word for it. Women are better than men, so I trust you.

 

[Miranda Fox]

It's a double-edged sword. They were helping to prove my point. t:

Right. I'm afraid hypocrisy doesn't impress me much.

As for him not saying it, I guess I'll take your word for it. Women are better than men, so I trust you.

I was telling you that I looked for it out of interest - this isn't about being right or wrong.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Right. I'm afraid hypocrisy doesn't impress me much.

Well, I freely admit that I can get accidentally hypocritical. But in this case, I wasn't trying to prove that Burton was right, and I'm not trying to prove anybody right, I was just voicing why I don't like how Nolan handles the Batman franchise and why I didn't like Batman Begins. Accusing me of having some kind of evil agenda is unnecessary.

You seem awfully confrontational. I'm not going to flame you to Hell, you don't have to expect it, not from me. I'd like to think I'm better than that, or, at least, these days...

I was telling you that I looked for it out of interest - this isn't about being right or wrong.

If a guy had told me he didn't say it (well, one of the majority of the males here), I would assume he was lying or had missed it. But by nature, women are, in most cases, more professional and just better people, period. So I had no reason to assume that you were lying, and your second refutal (sp?) of it's existance showed me you did know what you were talking about.

But back to the original point, yes, I thought it existed, but I was wrong. Funny how nobody until NOW decided to let me know it was a bunch of crap. Shows how alert everyone else is around here.

 

[BatScot]

As for no sidekicks? I don't care what the reason is, there's no excuse NOT to eventually put them in. They're part of the mythos, and a Batman franchise that doesn't eventually get a sidekick is a near-worthless set of adaptations.

In that case I'd like to see an adaptation of DKSA... if only to see the “sidekicks” get their just deserves.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

In that case I'd like to see an adaptation of DKSA... if only to see the “sidekicks” get their just deserves.

I admit that I'm not the biggest fan of the sidekicks, Batman would have been better if he'd stayed alone in the books, but since Robin was introduced over 40 years ago.... why bother with the hate? I just accept it, and even though I love the solo Batfilms, I take the sidekicks when they come because it's in the books. I want the films to be representative of the books to a large degree.... if that means Robin, so be it.

I honestly don't get the hate. Focus your hate on something more constructive than a kid in green briefs.

 

[Cryogenic]

Focus your hate on something more constructive than a kid in green briefs.

Are you suggesting that people would be better served to focus their love on a kid in green briefs?!

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Looking back on a lot of posts I've made in this thread.... even the first post, I've changed quite a bit since then. I'm just noting here for posterity that I find my earlier posts in this thread totally too subjective. I mean, my feelings haven't changed, but I could have tried to sound more objective.

But then, I don't guess a thread of this kind could have been very objective. I dunno.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Are you suggesting that people would be better served to focus their love on a kid in green briefs?!

No, my point is this, in a blunt form: deal with it. You don't like Robin? Deal with it. Y'know? If you're going to hate, hate something worthwhile, like a pedophile.

 

[Cryogenic]

Looking back on a lot of posts I've made in this thread.... even the first post, I've changed quite a bit since then. I'm just noting here for posterity that I find my earlier posts in this thread totally too subjective. I mean, my feelings haven't changed, but I could have tried to sound more objective.

But then, I don't guess a thread of this kind could have been very objective. I dunno.

I have this problem, too.

Personally, I think it comes from an innate love of the medium of film. Everyone is passionate about the things they love, right?

I dunno. If it's fun for you, then carry on. If you haven't alienated everyone, then you're probably doing something right. Then again, if you haven't alienated at least a few people, then you're probably doing something wrong.

Y'know: I really enjoy the "Star Wars" prequels. Love 'em, in fact. I don't think they're perfect. In fact, I think the first two (TPM and AOTC) are besieged with a few problems, and ROTS is largely problem free, but carries on some of their sins. But I didn't like to keep seeing 'em trashed on Superman Cinema, especially not when people came out with sweeping assertions that I didn't agree with in any way, shape or form. So I'd step up and defend 'em to the best of my ability. Only, I THEN got accused of being "pretentious beyond words", of having "no taste in films", in "thinking [I was] above everyone else" and on -- all from people who displayed terrible arrogance of their own, the very thing they accused me of most consistently. Occasionally, perhaps I went a little too far in my defences and lashed out at attacks (in other words, I fought fire with fire, rather than turning the other cheek), but Dharmesh did nothing about it. In the end, *I* was the one banned, albeit temporarily, and when I came back, I knew it was over. And it's like that a lot on the Internet. I definitely understand what drives you on this kind of subject.

And as far as *this* subject goes...

I don't hate BB or anyone that likes it. Quite the opposite, in some senses. BB has its worthier aspects -- a story that tries (but, in my opinion, fails) to be about something, Michael Caine, nice photography in the mountains, the playboy aspect of Bruce Wayne, a strong female foil in the shape of Rachel and a few nice metaphors here and there (e.g. I like the way the monorail is a symbol of prosperity under Thomas Wayne's Gotham and a symbol of decadence under Bruce's). It also helps elucidate what makes a great film and what doesn't. Arguing with other people who have strong reactions to it -- be they positive or negative ones -- helps strengthen my own perception of the merits and weaknesses and ins and outs of the art and science of filmmaking in general. To me, that is. Other people have their own reasons for discussing it, which may or may not overlap with mine. So I think there's a lot to take from it one way or another.

 

[BatScot]

No, my point is this, in a blunt form: deal with it.

Couldn't you use the same approach to sidekicks NOT being in the film version? Just because sidekicks are part of the comic mythos doesn't mean they MUST be portrayed on film... deal with it

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Couldn't you use the same approach to sidekicks NOT being in the film version? Just because sidekicks are part of the comic mythos doesn't mean they MUST be portrayed on film... deal with it

You sly Scotsman!

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I just don't like Robin for being Robin.

His entire existence is based around making Batman more friendly and easy going. Robin lightens the mood. That's my beef with him.

The fact that we cannot simply erase the history of his exitence forces me to deal with him......and well, accept him. He's a cool kid, and dibs on being the first kid sidekick ever too.

Robin does make Batman an easy target for haters too. That's something to deal with also.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The sidekicks ****ing suck, man. The only reason to ever even TRY having the sidekicks are for 3 reasons....and only 3 reasons.

1. See Nightwing
2. Have Jason Todd die
3. Have Babs be crippled.

Those are the only 3 reasons I think MOST Bat-fans would want to have the swarm of sidekicks in the films. And, as you can see...2 out of 3 are to have the character suffer to high hell.

I mean......c'mon, Gotham's so ****ing crowded, I can't believe it's Batman's city b/c he's got an entire army at his disposal in the city.

Nolan is not the first one who didn't want to use Robin, for obvious reasons.

He lightens the mood up too much. Much of Batman's strength as a character is in the darker sides of things.

Gotta say....don't ever remember Nolan mentioning Clayface in any interview ever. A link would help.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The sidekicks ****ing suck, man. The only reason to ever even TRY having the sidekicks are for 3 reasons....and only 3 reasons.

1. See Nightwing
2. Have Jason Todd die
3. Have Babs be crippled.

Those are the only 3 reasons I think MOST Bat-fans would want to have the swarm of sidekicks in the films. And, as you can see...2 out of 3 are to have the character suffer to high hell.

I mean......c'mon, Gotham's so ****ing crowded, I can't believe it's Batman's city b/c he's got an entire army at his disposal in the city.

Nolan is not the first one who didn't want to use Robin, for obvious reasons.

He lightens the mood up too much. Much of Batman's strength as a character is in the darker sides of things.

Gotta say....don't ever remember Nolan mentioning Clayface in any interview ever. A link would help.

Yeah, Tim Burton obviously. For some reason, Robin was in one of the Batman 1989 drafts (but he was downgraded from sidekick to Batmobile mechanic).

I wonder what fans' reaction as a majority would be if DC erased Robin from continuity totally (Nightwing included)? Thinking about making a thread with this question as the topic... because so many don't want Robin in TDK or the following movie. Not just because they are Batman's earlier adventures, but because like you said: He lightens the mood too much, amongst other complaints.

 

[El Payaso]

Don't make me start with Robin.

 

[El Payaso]

That said, your signature almost made me fart laughing, Lord.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I think the best Robin is Tim Drake. He's the closest to being a true sidekick. Jason only serves the tradgedy purpose. Dick was an okay kid, but HE'S the Robin that everyone thinks of when they think of Robin negatively. Because it was all fun to him. Now, the way he was portrayed in B:TAS is a major plus. No Burt Ward stuff and it works just fine.

But anyway, read any of the issues with Tim Drake as Robin. Go on. You'll find he doesn't "ruin" the comics like you guys think. Dick? Maybe.

I still can't get behind this approved alteration of the comic book material for films. Making Batman's suit all black? That's fine. Doesn't hurt a thing. But ignoring one of the largest pieces of the mythos just because you don't think he can work? Bull****.

This is what I mean when I say I dislike how so many fans just eat up what Nolan says like it's a good idea. When you fail to include Robin after a certain amount of movies, you're making a Batman franchise that's incomplete. That'd be like.... never including Alfred.

To be quite frank, if I had had the right to vote against including a sidekick with Batman back in 1940, I would have. But since he's in there anyway, might as well enjoy the strengths he brings. It's all part of the legacy of Bruce.... he eventually rebuilds a family for himself. You can't do that with just Alfred and him.

But after how messed up I find BB to be, if Nolan doesn't include Robin, I'm not surprised. In fact, I don't think any more radical changes from him would surprise me. Nolan is just not going to wrap his head around the fantasy element from the comic books.... I look forward to what the next franchise restart will bring us.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think your going wayyyy too far over the Robin thing.

He's not that cool a character. And, there's not enough time in a single film to cover EVERYTHING.

Everything you said is true.....but it would take more than 3 films to do all that. trying to add Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing....a dead Robin, Spoiler, Orpheus......I can keep going.....would take enough time to leave the villians out of the story.

If we were talking a Batman soap opera....or a Batman HBO series, you'd have a great argument. But, 2 hours is not enough time to cover EVERYTHING in the Batman mythos.

Plus, Robin is bad karma, man.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I think your going wayyyy too far over the Robin thing.

He's not that cool a character. And, there's not enough time in a single film to cover EVERYTHING.

Everything you said is true.....but it would take more than 3 films to do all that. trying to add Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing....a dead Robin, Spoiler, Orpheus......I can keep going.....would take enough time to leave the villians out of the story.

If we were talking a Batman soap opera....or a Batman HBO series, you'd have a great argument. But, 2 hours is not enough time to cover EVERYTHING in the Batman mythos.

Plus, Robin is bad karma, man.

Ummm.... I'm not talking about all in one film. I said (and I quote) "Eventually introduce Robin"

And just because I can enjoy Robin and you don't doesn't mean I'm "going too far" over anything. I have no idea where you get that from. Your dislike of Robin, it seems, is so great that you've convinced yourself Robin is no good, period. If you don't like him, fine. But just because some other Nolan fans dislike Robin as well, that doesn't make you the largest sector of the fanbase. I'm pretty sure a great majority of the fanbase (Perhaps the older diehards) either likes Robin or they don't mind him.

Trying to insinuate that I'm off my rocker for not hating Robin like yourself is a tad unbecoming, to say the least. Not only are you missing the point of my statements, but you're responding to what I'm saying like I'm some kind of extremist.

And you mentioned things like Spoiler and Orpheus. I wouldn't personally choose to adapt much of the recent comic books into film continuity. Not because it isn't any good, but because for the film, you want to stick to the more easily recognized material. Batgirl hasn't had the largest prescence in the books in recent years, I don't think I'd personally bring her in. But Robin is synonymous with Batman. The general populace (the group these movies are truly made for) would expect to see Robin eventually.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, the fact that you keep acting like it's only "Nolanites" that want Robin out is one thing that's wrong.

I think your an extremist in our you smash down Nolan for having a valid reason for not wanting to use Robin.

"Eventually introduce Robin" could mean anything. A third film? a Fourth film? A fifth film?

If we're left to assume Nolan will only do a trilogy, 3 films, then I do think it's asking alot to get that much of the sidekicks in 1 film......TDK won't have any Robin it seems.

I think it would be a trilogy within itself to have the evoultion of Robin and trying to balance Batgirl and whoever else they'd use. And, when we start out with a rookie Batman, it's hard to do that.

My definition of "eventually have Robin" means the next Trilogy, when a director takes over and continues what has been started here.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Well, the fact that you keep acting like it's only "Nolanites" that want Robin out is one thing that's wrong.

I don't see how I am. But you cannot deny that the largest group of people crying out for no Robin are the guys that hang out in the BB forums.

I think your an extremist in our you smash down Nolan for having a valid reason for not wanting to use Robin.

I freely admit I accidentally never did get around to checking out Nolan's reason for no Robin, linked to me by Miranda Fox. So what was his reason? As far as Nolan goes, I doubt he said anything about "Not yet." From what I understand, he seems opposed to ever introducing Robin.

"Eventually introduce Robin" could mean anything. A third film? a Fourth film? A fifth film?

If we're left to assume Nolan will only do a trilogy, 3 films, then I do think it's asking alot to get that much of the sidekicks in 1 film......TDK won't have any Robin it seems.

Please point me to where I said I expected Robin in TDK? Ideally, Robin is best introduced in a third film like in Batman Forever but only sew his seeds. At worst, he gets into costume for the last act of the third film, like BF. At best, he begins training by the end of the third film.

I think it would be a trilogy within itself to have the evoultion of Robin and trying to balance Batgirl and whoever else they'd use. And, when we start out with a rookie Batman, it's hard to do that.

That's fair--and logical--enough.

My definition of "eventually have Robin" means the next Trilogy, when a director takes over and continues what has been started here.

As long as the next director doesn't suck like Schumacher prettymuch did, I can't completely argue against that. Thankfully, because of what Schumacher did, we now have people directing the films that respect the material, so a new guy taking over a successful franchise doesn't mean what it used to.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't see how I am. But you cannot deny that the largest group of people crying out for no Robin are the guys that hang out in the BB forums.

Why do you think that is?

Is it because.....that's the film getting a sequel, where Robin can only be done on film b/c it's the only film series of Batman in works?

I mean, c'mon.....I doubt Burton die hards will argue wheter or not we'll get Robin in Tim Burton's third Batman film over at the Misc. Batman films forums.......simply b/c there isn't one in the works.

It only makes sense that the argument is happening in BB related threads....b/c those are the only places the arguemnt CAN go down.

I freely admit I accidentally never did get around to checking out Nolan's reason for no Robin, linked to me by Miranda Fox. So what was his reason? As far as Nolan goes, I doubt he said anything about "Not yet." From what I understand, he seems opposed to ever introducing Robin.

He doesn't have to, though. Especially if he will hand the series off to someone else too.

The jist of what I do remember was that basically, Robin lightens the mood....which is entirely true and valid.

Especially when we're talking about a young, inexperienced Batman. I think having Batman solo for a few films is a good thing, since we did get Robin for 2 films before.

Please point me to where I said I expected Robin in TDK? Ideally, Robin is best introduced in a third film like in Batman Forever but only sew his seeds. At worst, he gets into costume for the last act of the third film, like BF. At best, he begins training by the end of the third film

Never said you did. Point out to me where I said you did, actually.

I think, ideally, Robin is better suited to start off a new series. The first three could be the young Batman. The second series could be the older, father-like character he eventually grows into.....but we get the different eras that way, which of course would create a separation within the fanbase that of in itself too.

That's fair--and logical--enough.

Thanks. I just think it might be interesting to see the degree of difference we'd see within the fanbase......sort of the division we'd get.

As long as the next director doesn't suck like Schumacher prettymuch did, I can't completely argue against that. Thankfully, because of what Schumacher did, we now have people directing the films that respect the material, so a new guy taking over a successful franchise doesn't mean what it used to.

I say it won't happen again. I think WB learned they're lesson with Batman and Robin, big time. They were very careful in choosing a director this time around, I assume they will be again someday.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The main premise that started this:

'Robin needs to eventually, with this new reboot of Batman, be introduced if the movies are going to keep progressing in Nolan's continuity.'

Definitely.

Nolan is aimed for a trilogy, right? Well, if another director takes the directing helm after that trilogy is finished, and uses the Nolanverse to keep continuing the story, then Robin needs to be in there.

I think what most Nolan cynics are saying (me included), is that this guy too deeply frowns on the character of Robin. Insomuch that it may be Robin isn't included at all. And that's not acceptable.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Yeah, Robin can be introduced after Nolan's trilogy. But please not before then.

Edit: What other superhero has a side-kick that has been done successfully on film?

 

[El Payaso]

^What do you mean what other...?