The Dark Knight Rises Robin

El Payaso said:
Because children need a mother? Because it is ilegal to risk underage boys lives like that? Because since Dick is underage that would be manipulation? Because no judge would think a bachelor millionaire playboy is a good choice to raise a kid by himself or in worst of cases, a better choice than a normal family? Because some millionaire adopting a child would start such an scandal that Bruce's life would be ruined by press and papparazzis surrounding his house? You name it.

So if your a judge and a child who has just lost his parents and has no other family. You would put him in a foster home where a number of things could happen than have him w/ a billionaire who had experienced the same trauma and the child would have everything he needs?
 
Truth be told, Bruce isn't exactly the ideal parent. He's too scarred himself to help anyone else deal w/their pain. Putting on a costume & beating the crap out of people may be what helps him cope, but he shouldn't encourage it in others.
 
GL1 said:
The point we agree on is: Batman needs someone to do labwork for him, drive his Batmobile, pull his injured butt out of the fire and so on. He needs fieldwork done, an apparently, according to Nolan, he needs a little kid in a red shirt to give gadgets to. These are all roles that Robin has traditionally filled for years. They are necessary for Batman to have and Robin does them.

On the contrary, in the comics, Gordon has never driven the Batmobile, Lucious does not make house calls for Wayne and Batman has never called Alfred for Backup in the field. These are Robin's jobs. They've been split up between multiple people out of Robinphobia, but Robin is there... in different parts. I could be persuaded that I was stretching, but there's a kid in a red shirt, wearing that same red shirt on seperate days that's present during both conflicts with Scarecrow, the minor villain.

As you can see in Begins, Nolan and Batman don't need the red shirt boy at all. You write that character out of the movie and not only it stays the same but it's even better. The boy was a (sort of) stupid gimmick all Hollywood blockbusters must have, so kiddies feel they're in the movie or fans can argue to death whether his name was Dick grayson or not. Robin was the same kind of stupid gimmick in comics and cartoons and for the same reasons and all the same, you can write it out and everything goes better.

As you say, several interesting characters are doing things that a lame character like Robin did before. Good move by Nolan; the point remains the same: Batman doesn't need Robin and in worst of cases, he doesn't need him anymore.

Now, Nolan did all this oput of Robinphobia? How can we be sure if he insisted in adding the red shirt boy?

GL1 said:
There are relevant points to be made in the technical aspects of an adoption. The only real problem is Bruce's recent antics, which in turn damages Alfred's credibility to raise someone else. Everything else is easily dealt with. Alternately, Dr. Leslie could be added to the cast and she could adopt Dick.

And now we need yet another character to make an already useless character to be possible and plausible.

GL1 said:
As for all that risking and coersion stuff, I would hope that it'd be at least a movie if not two before Dick Grayson could become Robin, on any level... he should be a supporting cast member, like the rest, at all times.

Too many troubles. It makes looks more and more distant the Robin real "necessity."

chosen1 said:
So if your a judge and a child who has just lost his parents and has no other family. You would put him in a foster home where a number of things could happen than have him w/ a billionaire who had experienced the same trauma and the child would have everything he needs?

First of all, what I would do has nothing to do here since it would be a judge who determines what's best for a 13 y.o. kid according to the law, not some everyday convo.

I, for sure, wouldn't trust a drunk millionaire who's unable to have a semi-stable relationship, lives alone and burns his house now and then. A real judge? I doubt it even more. Unless he was extremely corrupt and Bruce Wayne was determined to use corruption, which would be totally against his very principles; you don't fight corruption being corrupt or using corruption.
 
I love this debate. Y'know why? Because there's validity on both sides. Whatever the pro side says, the anti side can make just as strong an argument. I'm pretty much neutral, so I can enjoy it better.
 
Chris Wallace said:
Truth be told, Bruce isn't exactly the ideal parent. He's too scarred himself to help anyone else deal w/their pain. Putting on a costume & beating the crap out of people may be what helps him cope, but he shouldn't encourage it in tohers.

Does the judge know how scarred he is? or does he know how much money he gives to charity and that his family is known for being good people despite his rurmoured reputation?
 
Probably not. That is why this is such a worthwhile debate.
I'm reminded of a remark made by Stan Lee, who said that he always hated the idea of a sidekick b/c it's child endangerment of the highest order.
 
Chris Wallace said:
Probably not. That is why this is such a worthwhile debate.
I'm reminded of a remark made by Stan Lee, who said that he always hated the idea of a sidekick b/c it's child endangerment of the highest order.

I understand that. But lets considered his age. Bruce would take him in at 13. couple year go by. Dick stumbles upon bruces secret. Begins training and heads out in cosume at age 17 at the earliest fights crime w/ him. for a number of years. Gets tired of the way he does things. Fights him and leaves when he graduates college at 24. Then becomes nightwing.

When your 18 you can go to war right?
 
Chris Wallace said:
17 w/parental consent.

there you go.

I dont know why some people are seeing robin as a kid when he is fighting along side batman. I see him as a senior in high school fully grown and can handle business.
 
Because he was introduced as a kid. And hiring a 25-year-old to play him like they did in 1995 isn't the best route to go either; it kinda looks like Bruce is taking on a man-toy rather than a boy-toy.
 
Chris Wallace said:
Because he was introduced as a kid. And hiring a 25-year-old to play him like they did in 1995 isn't the best route to go either; it kinda looks like Bruce is taking on a man-toy rather than a boy-toy.

I agree thats why I came up w/ this

I believe in the next film taking a small amount of time to put an adoption seen of Bruce taking in Dick would be a SMART thing to do. Why? Bruce is 30 years old. You cant just throw dick grayson in a movie to be come robin at the same age. Fact: Bruce raised dick grayson for a number of years before begining his training. This way post nolan films if they were to introduce robin in wont be like they just throw him in there. Have him adopt a 13 year old boy very quick but good sequence just to get it over with. with about the same amount of screentime 5-7 minutes as that little boy had in batman begins. Then through out nolans sequels see him mature a little the next film so your not taking away from the character of Batman its still all about batman.

Very important Side Note: Just because there is an adoption in Batman 2 The Dark knight DOES NOT MEAN there has to be a robin in batman 3 or 4 for that matter.
 
In the comics, to be fair, it wasn't THAT many years before Dick started his training. He didn't move in at 13 & put on the yellow cape at 18. And if he's staying w/Bruce for a while & doesn't question where his guardian goes at night, that'd seem a little goofy. It doesn't have to be years & years. But it does have to negate the whole "toy wonder" perception & every other stigma that has pulled Robin down over the years.
 
No, no Robin.

He's a gateway character. Once we have him, we'll have Batgirl, and then who the hell else knows.
 
Hades said:
No, no Robin.

He's a gateway character. Once we have him, we'll have Batgirl, and then who the hell else knows.
That is my biggest fear. Last time he proved a gateway not only to Batgirl (who to me just says, "Yeah I'm supposed to be this fearsome, mysterious figure of the night but ANYBODY can put on my costume & do what I do.") but to the campiness the franchise was intended to put to rest once & for all. If we can get Robin w/o revisiting that nonsense then fine.
 
And DO NOT point out that the animated series had both Robin & Batgirl and it did fine. The animated series has proven capable of a lot of things that movies fail to do, time & time again. Why? Because the makers of the cartoon don't seem to really care about the uninitiated, which is who the movie studios are chiefly concerned with.
 
chosen1 said:
Does the judge know how scarred he is?

If he read the newspapers about how Bruce burnt his own mansion, then yes.

chosen1 said:
or does he know how much money he gives to charity and that his family is known for being good people despite his rurmoured reputation?

So Bruce is actually "buying" the kid, or his right to adopt the kid. Because if another guy with no mioney to give would try to adopt him, then the judge will have no reasons based in philantropism.

The rest of the debate is useless since it would be unrealistic and silly to have Bruce Wayne adopting Dick.
 
Which goes to my previous argument. He has cultivated an image that makes him seem an even more unfit parent than he already truly is.
 
I think Nolan had somewhat thoughts of introducing Robin into this Batman franchise, but Nolan later dismissed the notion of having Robin in a sequel. And really, does Robin need to be in TDK or the third movie? I don't think so. Batman already has an adequate partnership with Gordon and Dent will be joining them.
 
Alright I'm done with this topic. El payaso my hats off to you sir, you made excellent points. You have my respect. :up:
 
chosen1 said:
Alright I'm done with this topic. El payaso my hats off to you sir, you made excellent points. You have my respect. :up:

img_hand_shake.jpg


And you have mine, c1. It mustn't be easy to have to argue with such a insensitive character as myself and still being respectful. :up:
 
As I see it the Robin issue boils down to only one question.......

Can a respectable and serious film be made involving a relationship between an adult and a child?

The answer based on the history of film, seems to be a resounding yes. Many films (and also literary works) have marvelously succeeded when based on this premise, including the fateful collision course of an unconnected adult and child.

So why then should the story of The Batman be exclusive. If handled properly the Dick Grayson / Robin saga would be appropriate, serious and successful.
 
El Payaso said:
As you can see in Begins, Nolan and Batman don't need the red shirt boy at all. You write that character out of the movie and not only it stays the same but it's even better. The boy was a (sort of) stupid gimmick all Hollywood blockbusters must have, so kiddies feel they're in the movie or fans can argue to death whether his name was Dick grayson or not. Robin was the same kind of stupid gimmick in comics and cartoons and for the same reasons and all the same, you can write it out and everything goes better.

Really? These are the motivations of all Batman producers of the past? You know this from... production notes? The point was that if you "write out Robin" you have to recreate other characters to do his job for him, including to bring comic relief (Fox, Alfred), to run minor Bat errands when he can't be in two places at once (Gordon) and to fish his fat out of the fire when he gets sucker punched (Alfred), provide an emotional anchor to his family (Alfred).

This is what Robin does, this is what his character has always done and these things can't be written out, whether you have a red shirt kid or not. Whether you want to appease fanboys or children or not. These are things that Robin has always done and they, in every incarnation of Batman i've seen, must be done. If you choose not to use Robin for whatever reason, then you have to rewrite other characters "out of character" to do them.

As you say, several interesting characters are doing things that a lame character like Robin did before. Good move by Nolan; the point remains the same: Batman doesn't need Robin and in worst of cases, he doesn't need him anymore.

Batman doesn't need anybody unless he's written to need them. As far as meta-textually, Batman needs villains and Batman typically needs alllies, neer moreso than in Begins. Robin qualifies as an ally.

We can call anyone lame out of hand. Catwoman's lame. Scarecrow is lame. Penguin is EXTRA-lame. Heck, I'm lame! Doesn't mean they're not good characters when done right, which we've seen. Of course they're lame when not done right... Batman is lame when not done right. Being lame is lame! Ha! Lame.

Now, Nolan did all this oput of Robinphobia? How can we be sure if he insisted in adding the red shirt boy?

Well, the two times I've heard him talk about Robin, he seemed pretty uninformed on Robin's age and role in the Bat-family. And Bale, who gets much of his Batman from Nolan expresses a similar "Oh, no! Not Robin!" As if Burt Ward will come to your house, tie up your family and demand you add bright neon colors to your Batman production. It's just silly, people's reactions to Robin. He's a character, and from what I've read, a compellig one. The pretend Robin has power in and of himself, that he can't be redefined is just plain rediculous.

And now we need yet another character to make an already useless character to be possible and plausible.

Useless character? There are unused characters, there are characters that don't fit with your plan, there are untalented writers, but there are no useless characters. That's just an amazing oversight. I'm shocked.

Too many troubles. It makes looks more and more distant the Robin real "necessity."

Too many troubles to add a supporting character to the cast? To have an overarching storyline to a franchise??? Wow...

While I'm sure there are superior story ideas to mine, or, more likely, they need to be developed and sharpened, there's no basis to call the character useless.

Again, I understand the fear of Robin, especially for people who don't read comics, but it's simply not logical.
 
Make Dick Grayson about 14-16, have Batman/Bruce feel responsible for not saving his parents, and invent some history between Bruce and Dick's father that doesn't exist in the comics and it could work. Perhaps Robin could only team with Batman one time, when Batman is trying to bring in whoever killed Dick's parents, then hang up the cape or whatever and heads off to college or something, but he should be featured.

If the whole concept of Robin didn't work or people didn't want it, he wouldn't have been around for the past 60+ years and been part of pretty much every incarnation of Batman there has ever been, and featured of some of the best Batman stories out there. Robin/Dick Grayson is as important to the Batman mythos as Alred or the Joker, he should be in there.
 
I have a question, I was recently re-reading all star batman and robin (I know there is not much to read) but I bought the robin cover for issue number one and my question is: would people be mad if they include robin with the original suit (yes i'm serious about the little shorts) I mean no pixie boots or modify the suit a little but keep the green shorts and the character won't be changed much.

Another idea is if they have him in the original costume for the circus scenes and then change the costume ala batman or the modern robin.

So what do people think?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"