Robin or no Robin?

[Breogan]

I was listening to a Batman podcast which suggested that where Bruce was hugely affected in a negative way by the Zorro movie, Dick Grayson should be affected in a positive way through the old swashbuckling Robin Hood movies....

A little ot, but about Bruce Wayne being "hugely affected in a negative way by the Zorro movie"; while the event of going out that night did rob Bruce Wayne of his parents and his life, it could have been any movie that did that, I think Wayne would be intelligent enough not to blame the movie, but blame the callous crime itself.
The fact that it was Zorro is however what gave Bruce Wayne the positive means and the vision that it was possible to recreate himself as someone (something) else, and in essence fight back. (once he found his own totem survivor creature of the night) instead of a Fox a Bat.
So it is not just all negative, the evening yes. But the movie Zorro the character what he took from it, he turned into a positive, it gave him a tool to fight back and survive through reinvention.

That said, it is by intent a dark tool, like Zorro a dark identity he takes, and by contrast you are right that Robin's choice is a bright one.

By no coincidence two characters immortalized by Fairbanks of who both Kane and Finger were fans.

As far as his portrayal if they are going to introduce a Robin, it should be a young kid close to the age of when Batman lost his parents or there's no point to the character, there should be a dark irony involved, in that while Batman chose a dark image and Robin a bright one, in their first outings together as B&R (as per Kane & Finger) it's Grayson who pushes even towards killing , and Wayne who reals him in.

Original Robin Dick Grayson is such a badass, his first appearance he alone fearlessly takes on Zucco and the gang who killed his parents, he faces and dodges gun fire, an angry mob who heavily outnumber him, picking them off one at a time while acrobating and swinging all over the top of a skyscraper construction, all before they can blow it up.

His next appearance he faces off the armed Joker alone, after Joker escapes from Batman, it's only the kid Robin standing between this cold mas murderer and freedom. The unflinching Robin kicks him off the top of a building to his death.
It's only Batman who the last second intervenes to save the Joker for the authorities.

That is Robin, raw powerful, primal energy released, demanding to be reeled in. Wayne needs to see his own unchecked self in this lost kid.
This character was "kick ass" so to speak from the beginning, long before any of the unnecessary derivative tough-kid wannabees from Jason to Tim to Carrie Kelly, to Hit-Girl or the latest Damian Wayne today. Who are thinking lets reinvent the kid sidekick.
They are all redundant imitations recycled for people , think it's just cool, new and edgy "now".
The character Robin was already doing it, if they actually want to use Robin in a movie, just actually look and stick to the source, with a contemporary costume everything that works, is already there.

 

[storyteller]

First and foremost, we should not be in the Nolanverse. No returns years later. I would accept a time jump where we met a young Robin but hit the "soon to be nightwing/redhood/red robin) years. Realistically I don't think they would give a kid too much to do for these films because of those damn child endangerment laws.

I did appreciate Batman Forever for going with an older Robin to create a sibling relationship. I would be okay with that but prefer a father/son thing.

I want Robin. He aidss Batman and is capable of getting into places the big guy can't. He has the empathy to see things Bruce can't. At the end he should seem like pure power that needs to be pointed(From Bruce's perspective). He shouldn't seem like a sidekick but the next phase in Batman.

 

[batfreakforever]

I hope they do have a Robin but if they don't thats cool too. I just want things on film we have'nt seen before or seen much of.

 

[Daybreak_st]

First and foremost, we should not be in the Nolanverse. No returns years later. I would accept a time jump where we met a young Robin but hit the "soon to be nightwing/redhood/red robin) years. Realistically I don't think they would give a kid too much to do for these films because of those damn child endangerment laws.

I did appreciate Batman Forever for going with an older Robin to create a sibling relationship. I would be okay with that but prefer a father/son thing.

I want Robin. He aidss Batman and is capable of getting into places the big guy can't. He has the empathy to see things Bruce can't. At the end he should seem like pure power that needs to be pointed(From Bruce's perspective). He shouldn't seem like a sidekick but the next phase in Batman.

I think that's one lesson we can learn from Arrow is that sidekicks can be handled really well and provide valuable support for the hero. With Dick Grayson he could be around 14/15 and have a little of Tim's tech background. He could be the hacker guy who works in the cave but is also being trained. Then later, maybe bats is injured and he has to go out to help. Like Batman forever show that the kid already has some street fighting skills etc. Then do with a costume/look something like in the Arkham games:

 

[MadVillainy]

I think Robin sould be included but not be 13 or however old he was when he first found Batman

 

[SlamAdams]

It might actually work better if Robin was 18. If his parents are killed and he is legally an adult, I don't really know how much responsibility the government would have to make sure he was still on his feet (i assume none). So he wouldn't necessarily be placed in Bruce Wayne's care, but Batman could run into him on the streets getting in trouble like people who hit hard times tend to do and end up in a Terry McGinnis situation, offered a job at Wayne Manor, add in room and board for his trouble.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I don't think they're even close to consider Robin for these movies. So far Batman has worked wonderfully alone.

Personally, I have never believed Robin could work next to Batman without ruining part of the myth. The idea of having Bruce as a father, that someone would give a 12 year old boy to an adult womanizer playboy billionaire is weird already, and this man endangering him is yet another idea that I cannot digest easily. But that could be changed, as they did in B Forever. Thing is, a young sidekick next to Batman is what I feel wouldn't work.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

That's because a 12 year old doesn't work in a modern concept and has since been abandoned. Also, Bruce doesn't endanger Richard/Jason/Tim/Damian, he tries to protect them by keeping them close to him and Alfred.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That's because a 12 year old doesn't work in a modern concept and has since been abandoned. Also, Bruce doesn't endanger Richard/Jason/Tim/Damian, he tries to protect them by keeping them close to him and Alfred.

And then training him to fight the most dangerous criminals in Gotham. Senator Pleasury disapproves. :

 

[doobie]

I'd like to see a Robin with the same balance of comic-book faithfullness and realistic feel that Batman had in Begins. Some kind of middle balance between Burt Ward/Batman Forever and John Blake. Some genuine plausible reason for why Batman lets him fight alongside him, why he wears circus colours. I had an idea of a Nolan type film where a circus comes to Gotham and plays in a theatre, his parents get assasinated, he grows up living with a foster family but keeps a friendship with Bruce, and by the time he actually goes out to fight alongside Batman he has proved he is capable.

Or even just a time where Batman is helped by Robin once, like how Dent was only Two Face one night in TDK. Like he helps Bruce fight terrorists attacking his circus, so you get the visual image of Batman and Robin together without the moral problem of explaining how Batman can put him danger long term.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If someone is going to go out and fight criminals in vigilante action, surely they are better protected slapped up in armour, given ninja training, hi-tech gadgets and stood next to Batman?

 

[doobie]

Well I think that would be the way to make Robin look morally defensible. Make it clear that he is 100% destined to fight crime whatever happens and that without Batman's guidance he would only destroy himself fighting alone and unprepared.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I'd like to see a Robin with the same balance of comic-book faithfullness and realistic feel that Batman had in Begins. Some kind of middle balance between Burt Ward/Batman Forever and John Blake. Some genuine plausible reason for why Batman lets him fight alongside him, why he wears circus colours. I had an idea of a Nolan type film where a circus comes to Gotham and plays in a theatre, his parents get assasinated, he grows up living with a foster family but keeps a friendship with Bruce, and by the time he actually goes out to fight alongside Batman he has proved he is capable.

Or even just a time where Batman is helped by Robin once, like how Dent was only Two Face one night in TDK. Like he helps Bruce fight terrorists attacking his circus, so you get the visual image of Batman and Robin together without the moral problem of explaining how Batman can put him danger long term.

You have to admit though that a properly portrayed Robin would have many difficulties to overcome. I think that Nolan could have thought something, yet he decided not to.

If someone is going to go out and fight criminals in vigilante action, surely they are better protected slapped up in armour, given ninja training, hi-tech gadgets and stood next to Batman?

That "if" is a big, big, big if.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

"Realism" has tainted superheroes and I'm sick of that question. Robin is not some huge plausibility question. It's been accepted for decades that Batman and Robin fight side by side and that Robin is a kid. The question of his safety is certainly something that can be brought up but it is not a true hurdle writers would have to jump over to put him in the movie.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

"Realism" has tainted superheroes and I'm sick of that question. Robin is not some huge plausibility question. It's been accepted for decades that Batman and Robin fight side by side and that Robin is a kid. The question of his safety is certainly something that can be brought up but it is not a true hurdle writers would have to jump over to put him in the movie.

Also for decades Robin has been held as an absurd character. It's not realism that I care for but a realistic tone, or just the image of a a seriously portrayed Batman next to him.

 

[Human Torch]

There's been more than enough solo Batman films at this point.Bats has the best supporting cast in comics and it gets virtually ignored in every film.Build up his allies this time!

 

[spidergeek232]

I say Robin should be 15 if he's in this series. Just seems right.

I picture the reboot being Dick Grayson's story. Move to the sequel and Dick is 18 now, ready to move on. Introduce Tim Drake being a fan of Robin.

The third movie would adapt A Death In The Family and have Jason be killed. Jason would be 17.

The fourth would have Batman in a dark place until Tim convinces him he needs Robin. Tim would be 16.

 

[shauner111]

Well I think that would be the way to make Robin look morally defensible. Make it clear that he is 100% destined to fight crime whatever happens and that without Batman's guidance he would only destroy himself fighting alone and unprepared.

This is the key.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

It's not realism that I care for but a realistic tone, or just the image of a a seriously portrayed Batman next to him.

There is absolutley nothing standing in the way of that being done on film. It has already been done in animation.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

There is absolutley nothing standing in the way of that being done on film. It has already been done in animation.

Same as with comics, animation and live action movies are different things. Working in one doesn't mean it'll work in the other one. And I'm not even saying it can't be done. But you have to admit that the fact that every single time a live action Robin has done to the screen has been perceived as a poor contribution IS something standing in the way of that being done on film.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Robin has only been done three times in major live action
productions. Two of those were well received (Batman '66 and TDKR) whilst the other (Batman Forever/ & Robin) had a film so critically panned that Batman himself was placed on the cinematic shelf for nearly a decade.

But Robin in TDKR was a massive success and every time I left the cinema people were looking forward to future films about Robin.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Same as with comics, animation and live action movies are different things. Working in one doesn't mean it'll work in the other one.

How is it that Robin can't work in a movie exactly? Because people think he's stupid? That's not a reason, it's an opinion and Tim Burton's Batman is a clear case of evidence that any character can do a full 180 in audience perception.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Robin has only been done three times in major live action
productions. Two of those were well received (Batman '66 and TDKR) whilst the other (Batman Forever/ & Robin) had a film so critically panned that Batman himself was placed on the cinematic shelf for nearly a decade.

But Robin in TDKR was a massive success and every time I left the cinema people were looking forward to future films about Robin.

There was no Robin in TDKR. That's why it worked.

And while well received, I very much doubt anyone wants to see Robin the way it was done in 1966.

How is it that Robin can't work in a movie exactly? Because people think he's stupid? That's not a reason, it's an opinion and Tim Burton's Batman is a clear case of evidence that any character can do a full 180 in audience perception.

I didn't say i can't work.I just say that Robin working in animation (or comics for that matter) doesn't mean he will work in movies.

 

[Mr. Mann]

It would be very hard to do Robin any kind of justice. I for one do not care for the character, so no, I would not like him to be in it.

 

[brett66]

I don't really care that much if he is or isn't included, but if he is (and it's not a mid-career Batman with multiple established sidekicks) I want him to be young... and Dick Grayson... I think most of the drama of Robin comes from that initial, uneasy pairing of Dick and Bruce. I've always liked that dynamic of dark intensity with cheeky little acrobat brat. So, somewhere between 13-18.