The Dark Knight Post Pictures Of Things You Really Want To See In 'The Dark Knight'

[The-Dark-Knight]

edit double post

 

[Two-Face]

Robin can be done right if the writer writes him good then it can be done but I don't like Robin and never did if he enters in Batman 3 or Batman 4 I wouldn't complain.

 

[fabman]

I'd like to see the next two films w/o Robin, but if he's done similar to the TAS version I'd be OK if he would appear in the 4th installement...

 

[XCharlieX]

Robin has nothing to do with homnsexuality, except to immature fools and homophobes.

Well, thats just ignorant. Just because were not begging for a comparison to Schumachers films and its baggage doesnt mean what you are suggesting and its ridiculous to assume such.

To ignore robins connection with alternative lifestyle is just living under a rock.

Honestly, I won't be hugely dissapointed if Robin is not a part of this franchise--it just pisses me off when fools pretend he can't be done.

He can, its just safer to have the mindset of he cant, because keeping the brand new clean slate of Nolan would be gone and the innuendos would arise once more, even unintentionally in writing. Whether you choose to see them or not is irrelevant.

These are the parts that make a director stay on tracks... you either say yes to the floodgates or no. Say no Nolan.

 

[IronMan_2005]

What I really want to see is the Joker pulling out a gun to shoot Batman, only to have a flag with "BANG!" written on it.

 

[Saint]

Well, thats just ignorant. Just because were not begging for a comparison to Schumachers films and its baggage doesnt mean what you are suggesting and its ridiculous to assume such.

To ignore robins connection with alternative lifestyle is just living under a rock.

No, it's just realistic. The notion that Batman and Robin are an analogue for homosexuality is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by a moronic author decades ago who wanted people to believe comics were ruining our children.

Batman and Robin are not about homosexuality, despite the fact that alarmists and comedians with poor material like to percieve them as such. Indeed, they have always been written as a fath-son analogue, and any romantic interest between the two has existed only in the minds of those who do not understand the material, or who want such a relationship to exist. Indeed, these are the same people who associate Batman exclusively with the sixties television show and phrases like "Holy rusted metal, Batman."

The narrowminded views of comedians and alarmists do not concern me. That fools will bleat "Batman and Robin are gay!" is not sufficient reasoning to remove Robin from the franchise.

He can, its just safer to have the mindset of he cant, because keeping the brand new clean slate of Nolan would be gone and the innuendos would arise once more. Whether you choose to see them or not is irrelevant.

These are the parts that make a director stay on tracks... you either say yes to the floodgates or no. Say no Nolan.

Yes, it's much better that our film makers remain cowards. God forbid any of them have some balls.

 

[Rynan]

Well, thats just ignorant. Just because were not begging for a comparison to Schumachers films and its baggage doesnt mean what you are suggesting and its ridiculous to assume such.

To ignore robins connection with alternative lifestyle is just living under a rock.

Are you in the same camp as this guy?

Cus I'm sure he'll be estatic to know he won't be alone anymore.

 

[XCharlieX]

Who the hell is that? All i know is Robin is an image of such kind.

Eminem knows, Robert Smigel knows, and all the people who saw batman forever and batman and robin know.

Utterly ridiculous. We can try to turn reality inside out but in the end, its useless. Robin = Ambiguously gay duo... how do you avoid such comparisons? Dont use him. Simple.

 

[Saint]

They don't "know" anything, they only percieve it that way (because they're idiots).

 

[XCharlieX]

And you only perceive it that way because your ignorant of what robins image is to the public.

I didnt make the image so dont look at me. Now that its there, you dodge the entire bullet. Simple.

All i know is a film has the right to portray itself the way it sees fit. If he sees something that doesnt fit the message wanted, bypass the situation.

 

[Saint]

And you only perceive it that way because your ignorant of what robins image is to the public.

I know perfectly well what the public thinks of Robin--I just don't give a f**k. The public are idiots. Prior to Batman Begins, they had a pretty ******ed view of Batman, too--namely, Adam West and George Clooney. But that didn't stop us from making a Batman film and showing them otherwise.. Using Robin just gives us plenty of opportunity to prove them to be idiots a second time.

 

[XCharlieX]

Or a massive risk that should not be taken.

I can see beyond the robin is gay thing personally, but thats playing with fire in the delivery of the film. The other issue is the "me too" thing, that in itself is yet another reason of many to keep robin and batgirl at a distance imo.

 

[Rynan]

Who the hell is that?

The greatest influential force ever to rock the comic industry.


Perhaps bigger than Allan Moore, Frank Miller and Neil Gaiman combined.

 

[Saint]

Or a massive risk that should not be taken.

Yeah, why risk success when you can surrender before the fact? Sorry; I like film makers who arent cowards. They're the ones who make films like Lord of the Rings, despite idiots who bleat that it can't be done.

 

[XCharlieX]

Yeah, why risk success when you can surrender before the fact? Sorry; I like film makers who arent cowards.

And i like film makers who play their risks smart.

 

[The Batman]

Wow...Robin totally didnt seem gay to me on BTAS. Or Teen Titans.

Like Saint said, the whole "Batman and Robin are gay" thing is used by people who dont truly understand the characters. I doubt most comedians actually believe it anyway, they just need comedic material.

 

[Ryudoz]

The whole notion that Robin can't be done without implying that there is a homosexual relationship with Batman is absurd. However, there are people who will make the connection regardless of material based off of their own feelings towards the situation of an two men dressed in costumes fighting crime. Yes, the 60's television series seemed to make that connection. The Animated Series on the other hand, did not. Some of the better episodes of the series, I felt, were the instances when Bruce and Dick clashed because that ultimately is the nature of their relationship. The son (Dick) learning from the father (Bruce) and then wanting to show what he could do to gain Bruce's approval. It doesn't take someone playing it safe or someone taking a risk to portray Robin in this franchise because I don't think it's that big of a risk. The material the actors are given and their performances make the movie.

When Robin was introduced in Batman Forever I didn't think it was so bad. He played a role in the movie that I thought fit the story well. Batman and Robin wasn't a bad movie because it had Robin in it, it was bad because the script was terrible (we can only take so many horrendous one-liners), the performances were just as bad, and the movie itself was just a poor quality. Too mmuch sugar and not enough substance. And I think that's what the whole Robin thing boils down to. Substance. If there's a good story to be told involving Robin, then bring it on.

 

[E-Mack]

I know perfectly well what the public thinks of Robin--I just don't give a f**k. The public are idiots. Prior to Batman Begins, they had a pretty ******ed view of Batman, too--namely, Adam West and George Clooney. But that didn't stop us from making a Batman film and showing them otherwise.. Using Robin just gives us plenty of opportunity to prove them to be idiots a second time.

Excellent retort.

Yes, before BB, Batman was definitely the joke of the comic book biz, especially after the B&R incident. Took a few years, but Nolan brought legitimacy back to the character. He showed that these characters are very serious, and the camp and gay overtones are certainly not what makes these characters tick.

I also seem to remember BB's leading man, Bale, also did not have a really warm take on Batman as well. UNTIL he started reading the serious works such as Arkham Asylum, TLH, and DV. Two of which, feature Robin btw. Just because the general public thinks a certain way, doesn't mean that's what it has to be. People just need to be shown again what these characters are all about. All they need is a good film to do this.

 

[fabman]

Robin is in Arkham? Gotta read that graphic novel... anyway I love TLH and DV.

 

[E-Mack]

My mistake. That's supposed to read "One".

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

Robin is in Arkham? Gotta read that graphic novel... anyway I love TLH and DV.

for a minute there i thought i missed something and robin had been put away in arkham, YAYYYYYY keep him there i thought.

then the penny dropped and i realised.

 

[kytrigger]

What I really want to see is the Joker pulling out a gun to shoot Batman, only to have a flag with "BANG!" written on it.

No! It should say "Click" onthe flag, and then Joker can shout "Damn, out of bullets!"

 

[XCharlieX]

I know perfectly well what the public thinks of Robin--I just don't give a f**k. The public are idiots. Prior to Batman Begins, they had a pretty ******ed view of Batman, too--namely, Adam West and George Clooney. But that didn't stop us from making a Batman film and showing them otherwise..

And why did it work so well? Some elements were just stomped out, paired with great writing. Every little thing counts. Thats the bridge to new school. Lets not burn it imo. Image counts... BIG TIME.

When I saw Begins in the theater i knew nolan knows the deal. He took out all of the turnoffs that marred batman and replaced it with urban grittyness. Outstanding.

Tampering with this is perhaps well intentioned, but unwise. You lose the entire urban sensibilities audience gained which gave this saga new life.

 

[Saint]

There is a signficant difference between little things and Robin. Robin is not a little thing, he is and has always been a major contributing force to the Batman mythos. I think sacrificing him to the whims of the general public who know nothing about the property and never will is something of a self-betrayl. Sometimes you need to bend the public, instead of letting the public bend you.

The risk-free attitude would have resulted in Batman Begins being a prequel, the Joker killing the Waynes, and scores of other mediocre ideas. You've GOT to take risks, or your film will be nothing.

Despite all this, my qualifier has always been that Robin must be done well to be included. If his inclusion is anything short of spectacular, then he should indeed be left out, because the risk isn't worth it if the payoff isn't there. So by that logic, I hope that Robin is included in the proposal for the third film and is given a chance to be worked in well--if it doesn't work and he's removed from the script, so be it: at least they weren't too cowardly to try.

 

[kedrell]

Robin has, from the begining, been a compromise of the Batman story in an attempt to get younger and younger readers interested in Batman. A lot of fans, of which I am one, think his inclusion was a major mistake forced on the writers by the head honchos at DC. Same goes for Batgirl.