Robin Begins

[GL1]

I agree with the OP, two trends I've noticed in this thread I disagree wtih

A) Robin with a cowl/Red Robin costume... that changes the basic silhoette of Robin's costume, and turns him into a cheap knock-off Batman instead of his own character. That would be unwise.

Superscar mades some great concept art where Robin has a large goggle-setup that keeps the lithe feel of the origional costume, can have a great in-storyline reason AND plausibly hides his identity.

B) Meeting Batman post-14. The big thing about Robin is that he was TRAINED by Batman... and training to be Batman doesn't happen over a couple months... it takes YEARS. The idea that a 16, 17 or 18 year old could meet Bruce Wayne, get adopted by him and then learn to be a ninja, drive military vehicles, be a mega-detective and etc in a year's time is completely and utterly implausible. It makes Batman's training look cheap. It makes Batman look stupid, taking 7 years to learn what it takes Dick only 7 months to learn.

In order for Robin to work he has to be adopted by Batman as a youngster (8,9,10,111) and be trained for YEARS. Otherwise, it belittles the training and skill involved, something which Nolan took a great deal of care to establish.

That said, Honestly, there's no problem introducing Dick Grayson in the third film, and keeping him as a background character, like Alfred, Lucious and Gordon, all of whom help Batman immensely without having to BE Batman or take away from his Batmanness or lonerness. In the 4th movie, after some YEARS of training have passed, then perhaps a 'Robin' could be introduced.

I do agree that the tag-a-long aspect of Robin should be left out, just as the comics have been leaving it out for a very, very, VERY long time.

I, honestly, wonder if a Robin solo movie couldn't be done. I think the character has enough draw to pull it off, a nice winter or late-late summer release could pull in a decent amount and it'd be a nice spinoff from the big Nolan franchise... even with Teen Titans, I'm not sure continuity is a big issue here...

 

[Jordacar]

That said, Honestly, there's no problem introducing Dick Grayson in the third film, and keeping him as a background character, like Alfred, Lucious and Gordon, all of whom help Batman immensely without having to BE Batman or take away from his Batmanness or lonerness. In the 4th movie, after some YEARS of training have passed, then perhaps a 'Robin' could be introduced.

The multiple-films idea might work, but look at the whole first act of Begins, with Bruce's whole evolution from his parents' death to returning to Gotham all done in about 40 minutes or so. Maybe we're thinking too linearly, and a somewhat more jumbled chronology can work for Dick as well.

 

[DawnWarrior]

ratings or not, singer had 80 years of history for superman and he didnt even get the hair right. and thats just the tip of the iceberg. x-men and x2 were love letters to hugh jackman. and as much as i thought jackman rocked as wolverine, everyone else lacked. halle berry was terrible as storm. cyclops was terribly under used. rogue was a weakling who managed to avoid every major fight. and singer is terrible at establishing characters in the 1st film. he needs a sequel before we really start caring. as for superman. where to start? the terrible plot? the obvious homage to donner? the weak and ******ed lois? the hetero-sexually questionable superman or the bastard child he had with lois? or perhaps luthor playing the anna nicole smith card?

ill take 2 good raimi films and a 3rd installment letdown over singer any day.

When I first saw returns, I thought it was pretty cool. However, after reflection and repeat viewings, I've decided that it's just crap. And yeah, in spite of a very weak third installment, the Spider-Man movies wipe the floor with the X-Men movies any day of the week.

 

[DawnWarrior]

Okay, in Tim Burton’s Batman, Bruce’s parents are killed by a gunman who turns out to be the young Joker, which motivates him to take his revenge on the Joker. However in Batman Begins, the gunman is Joe Chill (as it is in the comics), who is an insignificant criminal in the grand scheme of things, and the whole point is that Bruce’s quest as Batman is bigger than getting revenge on the one guy who killed his parents. Similarly, in Batman Forever, it is Two-Face who kills Dick’s family, and that motivates him to become Robin to take his revenge. I think what worked for Bruce in Begins should work for Robin as well; the killer should be Tony Zucco (as in the comics), and the whole thing that Bruce must teach Dick is that if he wants justice for what happened to his family, as Bruce did, his quest must go beyond the one guy who wronged him.

One of the recurring topics of discussion is, of course, Dick’s age. How old is he when his parents are killed, and how old is he when he becomes Robin? I think Dick needs to be a kid. We’ve seen Dick adopted as a teenager in Forever. Ignoring all the ugliness of that movie for a second, the idea of this rotten teenager (played by 25-year-old O’Donnell) wanting to be Batman’s partner never really seemed plausible. I think Dick NEEDS to be a kid when Bruce adopts him to establish the father-son relationship between the two (and not the whole gay thing that everybody makes fun of them for). He was trained in acrobatics right out of the cradle. If Dick is, like, nine or ten when his parents die (about same age as Bruce was), then we get a nice parallel. Years of training later, I say Dick turns 15 when Bruce gives him a Nomex suit of his very own for his birthday. I’m still a little hazy about if this would be in one film or two...

I definitely like the idea of young Dick going out and fighting crime on his own without Bruce’s approval, utilizing his gymnastic skills as best he can (probably trying to track down Zucco himself). One thing I haven’t really decided on is if Bruce should reveal his identity to Dick or if Dick should find out on his own without Bruce knowing. After Bruce finds out what Dick’s been up to, he drags him back to the manor and they would have a big showdown in the Batcave. This would be a dramatic high point, where Bruce would totally stonewall Dick, and Dick actually must convince Bruce to train him and let him become his protégé. Dick has to want this job, bad. Just like in Begins, it would have to sell the idea to the audience that this kid becoming Robin is not only plausible, but also inevitable.

Just as Begins focused on Batman’s origin, the movie that introduces Robin should pretty much focus on Dick becoming Robin, with some freak from Batman’s rogues off on the sidelines cooking up some scheme to cause trouble.

His name is “Robin” not just after the bird, but also after Robin Hood, so that connection should be established. (Oh, bit of trivia: Dick was born on the first day of spring. Maybe that should be in there too).

Superscar mades some great concept art where Robin has a large goggle-setup that keeps the lithe feel of the origional costume, can have a great in-storyline reason AND plausibly hides his identity.

Where? Where? I wanna see it! Where can I see it?!

 

[wellsy]

Is this the one you were referring to? Its in this thread (along with plenty of other ideas on Robin too).

 

[Cyrusbales]

I agree with the OP, two trends I've noticed in this thread I disagree wtih

A) Robin with a cowl/Red Robin costume... that changes the basic silhoette of Robin's costume, and turns him into a cheap knock-off Batman instead of his own character. That would be unwise.

Superscar mades some great concept art where Robin has a large goggle-setup that keeps the lithe feel of the origional costume, can have a great in-storyline reason AND plausibly hides his identity.

B) Meeting Batman post-14. The big thing about Robin is that he was TRAINED by Batman... and training to be Batman doesn't happen over a couple months... it takes YEARS. The idea that a 16, 17 or 18 year old could meet Bruce Wayne, get adopted by him and then learn to be a ninja, drive military vehicles, be a mega-detective and etc in a year's time is completely and utterly implausible. It makes Batman's training look cheap. It makes Batman look stupid, taking 7 years to learn what it takes Dick only 7 months to learn.

In order for Robin to work he has to be adopted by Batman as a youngster (8,9,10,111) and be trained for YEARS. Otherwise, it belittles the training and skill involved, something which Nolan took a great deal of care to establish.

That said, Honestly, there's no problem introducing Dick Grayson in the third film, and keeping him as a background character, like Alfred, Lucious and Gordon, all of whom help Batman immensely without having to BE Batman or take away from his Batmanness or lonerness. In the 4th movie, after some YEARS of training have passed, then perhaps a 'Robin' could be introduced.

I do agree that the tag-a-long aspect of Robin should be left out, just as the comics have been leaving it out for a very, very, VERY long time.

I, honestly, wonder if a Robin solo movie couldn't be done. I think the character has enough draw to pull it off, a nice winter or late-late summer release could pull in a decent amount and it'd be a nice spinoff from the big Nolan franchise... even with Teen Titans, I'm not sure continuity is a big issue here...

This is a great post, just for for that word alone!

 

[Justice Bringer]

The armor is too bulky.

 

[Justice Bringer]

And obviously the Robin actor should be younger; and shorter. Maybe around 16.

 

[Cannibal Feast]

How about this?
Bruce takes in Dick at around age 13, as in the comics. The death of Dick's parents echoes his own loss and he wants to make sure this kid is ok. Seems reasonable enough.
Bruce recognizes Dick's skills as an acrobat and trains him in combat techniques etc. However, he has no intention of taking this kid out and putting him in harm's way. At most, he wants Dick to man the cave and serve as sort of a command post alongside Alfred.
After a few years, not before Dick is about 16 or 17, Dick follows Bruce out unbeknownst to Bruce and proves himself to be effective. Maybe he even saves Bruce's life somehow.
Bruce then reluctantly agrees to bring Dick out as his partner/sidekick since he knows Dick now has a taste for it and will do it on his own anyway. He figures at least this way he can make sure Dick doesn't get himself killed.

 

[The Question]

B) Meeting Batman post-14. The big thing about Robin is that he was TRAINED by Batman... and training to be Batman doesn't happen over a couple months... it takes YEARS. The idea that a 16, 17 or 18 year old could meet Bruce Wayne, get adopted by him and then learn to be a ninja, drive military vehicles, be a mega-detective and etc in a year's time is completely and utterly implausible. It makes Batman's training look cheap. It makes Batman look stupid, taking 7 years to learn what it takes Dick only 7 months to learn.

I dosagree. First off, Bruce did spend alot of those seven years just wandering about somewhat aimlessly. And second, Dick is much more inherently athletic that Bruce. I think he could get through at least the combat training much faster than Bruce did. Besides, I was imagining a scenario where Dick is learning as he goes along. The only reason I want to make Dick older is to back Bruce look like less of a *****ebag.

 

[Matt.S99]

That's also true.

Who'd you cast as Robin?

I'm thinking Zac Efron, your thoughts?

Zac is also my choice. I just hate people saying he sucks because he's in High school musical. He's done other stuff besides that. He is a pretty good actor, not wow amazing but good.

and heres my designs for Robin
Since Batman got a new suit, hey why not let him give Robin his old costume spares? lol

Spoiler

 

[GL1]

I dosagree. First off, Bruce did spend alot of those seven years just wandering about somewhat aimlessly. And second, Dick is much more inherently athletic that Bruce. I think he could get through at least the combat training much faster than Bruce did. Besides, I was imagining a scenario where Dick is learning as he goes along. The only reason I want to make Dick older is to back Bruce look like less of a *****ebag.

How does he look like a *****ebag by being a father?

How does he NOT look like a *****ebag putting an untrained child in danger? To "learn as he goes along?"

And Zac Efron has never impressed me with his performance. I'll go see Hairspay, but I can't name one time when Zac has done something in a movie to pull on my heartstrings in ANY direction. He hasn't even convinced me he sucks... he's just... there, for the girlies, I presume...

 

[The Question]

How does he look like a *****ebag by being a father?

He looks like a *****ebag training a twelve year old kid to be a vigilante.

How does he NOT look like a *****ebag putting an untrained child in danger? To "learn as he goes along?"

That's why I said that it should be Dick's choice from the start, and Bruce is merely doing his best to keep him from getting killed.



Anyway, having Robin start out young in one movie and show up again in another could work. My point is simply, if you're going to have him become Robin in the film he first appears in, he has to be around 16.

 

[Jordacar]

That's why I said that it should be Dick's choice from the start, and Bruce is merely doing his best to keep him from getting killed.

I think one of the most important things to establish with Dick is that he really wants this more than anything, and he'll go after it whether Bruce helps him or not.

 

[GL1]

He looks like a *****ebag training a twelve year old kid to be a vigilante.

You can excuse training, "Bruce was teaching him to focus his anger" or "Bruce was teaching him so that he could take over in twenty years"

That's why I said that it should be Dick's choice from the start, and Bruce is merely doing his best to keep him from getting killed.

Dick can't choose for Batman to take him out, Batman has to choose to take him out. And Dick, realistically, will be safer running around the streets on his own at night that dashing headlong into criminal epicenters like Batman does. There are billion better ways to deal with that than give him a costume and have him tagalong.

Anyway, having Robin start out young in one movie and show up again in another could work. My point is simply, if you're going to have him become Robin in the film he first appears in, he has to be around 16.

If the film, as suggested above, takes place over four years (requiring two different actors for Robin), then yes, I wouldn't have him become Robin before 16. That could work, but then it becomes very Robin-centric and ceases to be a Batman movie if the plot revolves around the four years that it takes Robin to grow up.

For a solo movie perhaps.

 

[dnno1]

The last time somebody tried to get robin into the picture the critics had a feast with "Batman and Robin".

 

[Jordacar]

Robin wasn't the only thing wrong with "Batman & Robin."

 

[DawnWarrior]

The last time somebody tried to get robin into the picture the critics had a feast with "Batman and Robin".

That's because they decided to make it a campy, kiddie show like the Adam West series. And they put nipples on the suits. And codpieces on the utility belts. And pop-out ice skates on the boots. And they turned Robin into a whiny, oversized brat. And outfitted Mr. Freeze with an evil hockey team and an endless stream of cold puns. And turned Batgirl into Alfred's niece. And turned Alfred into Steven Hawking. And put a credit card in Batman's belt. And generally turned Tim Burton's dark, brooding, gothic universe into a brightly colored, campy, homoerotic nightmare.

But it wasn't Batman that was the problem; if he was, then there would be no reason to make a Batman film ever again. But none of us ever wanted that, because we knew that our beloved Dark Knight was a good character, with good stories that could make a great movie. And so, eight years later, they made "Batman Begins." And lo, we did rejoice, because it was merely the interpretation of Batman that needed work. And that's all we need to figure out with Robin. That's all.

 

[GL1]

That's because they decided to make it a campy, kiddie show like the Adam West series. And they put nipples on the suits. And codpieces on the utility belts. And pop-out ice skates on the boots. And they turned Robin into a whiny, oversized brat. And outfitted Mr. Freeze with an evil hockey team and an endless stream of cold puns. And turned Batgirl into Alfred's niece. And turned Alfred into Steven Hawking. And put a credit card in Batman's belt. And generally turned Tim Burton's dark, brooding, gothic universe into a brightly colored, campy, homoerotic nightmare.

But it wasn't Batman that was the problem; if he was, then there would be no reason to make a Batman film ever again. But none of us ever wanted that, because we knew that our beloved Dark Knight was a good character, with good stories that could make a great movie. And so, eight years later, they made "Batman Begins." And lo, we did rejoice, because it was merely the interpretation of Batman that needed work. And that's all we need to figure out with Robin. That's all.

Aaaaaa-men!

 

[Justice Bringer]

That's also true.

Who'd you cast as Robin?

I'm thinking Zac Efron, your thoughts?

No. You need someone who can play a dark and tortured kid....

Not a Disney fruit

 

[Spider–Man]

Sooooo many other DC properties need to take priority over this one.

 

[The Question]

You can excuse training, "Bruce was teaching him to focus his anger" or "Bruce was teaching him so that he could take over in twenty years"

True.

Dick can't choose for Batman to take him out, Batman has to choose to take him out. And Dick, realistically, will be safer running around the streets on his own at night that dashing headlong into criminal epicenters like Batman does. There are billion better ways to deal with that than give him a costume and have him tagalong.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[GL1]

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

Yeah, I kinda confused myself there... but the basic point was that it doesn't matter if Dick wants to go out and be a vigilante, so "He's safer when he's with me" isn't a valid reason.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, I kinda confused myself there... but the basic point was that it doesn't matter if Dick wants to go out and be a vigilante, so "He's safer when he's with me" isn't a valid reason.

Why? My whole point is that Bruce would be thinking, if this kid wants to fight crime I might as well train him so he doesn't get himself killed.

 

[GL1]

Why? My whole point is that Bruce would be thinking, if this kid wants to fight crime I might as well train him so he doesn't get himself killed.

Well, yeah, but I wasn't talking about training, I was talking about actual vigilanteing, like Dick is about to go out in the street in a homemade costume and Batman says: "Oh, well, I guess I better take him with me, then..."

I think that's foolishness...