Batman Begins Was that little kid supposed to be Robin?

[Polomontana]

The little kid that he gave proof to that he saw him.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Hello there, children.

Why'd you make two threads about this?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Not this again...................

 

[drunkhomer]

*** no

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Uh..........no.

I mean.....why would he be Robin?

 

[I7eIVIoNBoY]

Well why would they have some random scene of a kid (wearing a red t-shirt) telling batman that nobodies going to believe that he saw him then following with batman giving him his freakin batnoculars i mean cmon think about it, its so obvious that nolan added that scene to give a nod to robin. i'll bet each and every one of u 1,000,000 dollars that if nolan were ever to include robin in his films that that kid would certainly be him. i am sooo certain that those binoculars r going to pop up again

 

[Dope Nose]

it was to show that Batman was instilling hope in Gotham.

 

[Robin91939]

This is my thought on it.

The child was in the movie for three reasons, really.

1.) To show just how bad the narrows really were. He was a neglected child, standing out in the rain with his parents fighting and hollering inside the house. He wasn't a bitter kid, he was hopeful, even in the rain with his fueding parents. He represtented the goodness in Gotham that Batman was fighting for.

2.) Batman has always been loved by children. This was a tribute to all of the young fans that have loved Batman for the ages. He was there to give a childs perspective of the Dark Knight. He saw what the adults couldn't. He saw that the Batman was a hero, "Batman will save us".

3.) He was an homage to the character of Robin. Not of any specific incarnation of Robin, be it Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake- but rather just a generic homage to the character. He wore a red short sleeve shirt, with a longsleeve greyish green shirt underneath, he gave hope to Batman, and depended on him in a time of need.

The character of "Narrow's Child" was in the film BATMAN BEGINS for these reason. Will he ever become Robin? Absolutely not. Was he a tribute to the fans, and of the character of Robin? Yes. Is that all that a Robin fan needs? From a genesis movie of Batman, yes.

-R
__________

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This is my thought on it.

The child was in the movie for three reasons, really.

1.) To show just how bad the narrows really were. He was a neglected child, standing out in the rain with his parents fighting and hollering inside the house. He wasn't a bitter kid, he was hopeful, even in the rain with his fueding parents. He represtented the goodness in Gotham that Batman was fighting for.

2.) Batman has always been loved by children. This was a tribute to all of the young fans that have loved Batman for the ages. He was there to give a childs perspective of the Dark Knight. He saw what the adults couldn't. He saw that the Batman was a hero, "Batman will save us".

3.) He was an homage to the character of Robin. Not of any specific incarnation of Robin, be it Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake- but rather just a generic homage to the character. He wore a red short sleeve shirt, with a longsleeve greyish green shirt underneath, he gave hope to Batman, and depended on him in a time of need.

__________

It also represents the completion of Bruce's journey that began with his parents being killed. Now Bruce finally has the power to stop such things happening, as he does when he saves the kid and Rachel from the lunatics in the narrows.

 

[Robin91939]

It also represents the completion of Bruce's journey that began with his parents being killed. Now Bruce finally has the power to stop such things happening, as he does when he saves the kid and Rachel from the lunatics in the narrows.

I really like that thought. I actually think this is a good idea to expound upon in a sequel, like the final film. Have Batman save a family from a mugger- kind of in the vein of the beginning of BATMAN, but have him interupt the killing in the middle of it. Right as the trigger is being pulled he stops it. We see Batman, as he looks at the scene: The mugger down for the count and the family holding the trembling son- safe- and he begins a voice over that takes us out of the franchise.

EXT. Alley way. Night.
The alley has come to be known over the years as Crime Alley. The name originates after Gotham's favorite family was murdered, the Waynes, right before their son's eyes. Tonight another couple walks through the damp, forboding tunnel of hell. A familiar scene, two loving parents hold the hands of their young son as the make their way to the street. Out of the shadows a man steps and draws his gun.

MAN
Money, jewelry ...fast.

HUSBAND
Alright, just...don't do anything to my family.

The man reaches for his wallet in his pocket. As he does the shadowed crook points the gun at his wife, the husband then leaps for the gun and a struggle insues. It is stopped when the Batman, swoops down like a omen from hell and a guardian angel. He hits just the right pressure point to make the man drop the gun, which fires first into the air. He then throws a haymaker to the man's temple, knocking him unconcious.

He looks down at the fallen criminal. The family runs to eachother, hugging, safe.

CLOSE on BATMAN's FACE
Batman almost cracks a smile as he witnesses the scene.

BATMAN (VO)
I made a vowe on the grave of my parents to rid the city of the evil that took their lives, so that no boy would have to go through the hell that I did. Tonight, I came that much closer to living up to that promise.


CLean that up, a lot, but you get the idea.

-R

 

[Boghen_Moghen]

The little kid that he gave proof to that he saw him.

No, it's Killer Croc

 

[speedracer216]

lol. croc. sweet.

but seriously, it has nothing to do with robin. not an omage, not a foreshadowing, nothing. nolan has even said that he probably won't do robin and doesn't think he'd be interested in that story at least not in his 3 movies or whatever. so i'm sure he wouldn't have stuck in some early robin when he wasn't even planning to ever use robin.

 

[Robin91939]

lol. croc. sweet.

but seriously, it has nothing to do with robin. not an omage, not a foreshadowing, nothing. nolan has even said that he probably won't do robin and doesn't think he'd be interested in that story at least not in his 3 movies or whatever. so i'm sure he wouldn't have stuck in some early robin when he wasn't even planning to ever use robin.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

Just because he said that he wasn't going to do Robin doesn't mean that he doesn't respect the character. Or that Goyer didn't place him in there as an homage to the character. The child IS NOT Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake, but he is what they represent. A youth that sees the good in Batman and who shows Batman the good in Gotham city, the hope.

Also, on another note- Sam Rami said he didn't not like Venom and would not use him in his films. However, in Movie one there was still an homage and allusion to Eddie Brock and in Movie two the "Spider-man No More" photo in the Bugle was credited to "Eddie Brock Bugle Photographer". And now look where we are, Movie three and Eddie Brock/Venom is a headlining villain....how things change.

I'm not saying that Robin will be in this franchise, but I'm DEFFINETLY not sayng he won't be.

-R

 

[MacLeod]

You couldn't be further from the truth.

Just because he said that he wasn't going to do Robin doesn't mean that he doesn't respect the character. Or that Goyer didn't place him in there as an homage to the character. The child IS NOT Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake, but he is what they represent. A youth that sees the good in Batman and who shows Batman the good in Gotham city, the hope.

Also, on another note- Sam Rami said he didn't not like Venom and would not use him in his films. However, in Movie one there was still an homage and allusion to Eddie Brock and in Movie two the "Spider-man No More" photo in the Bugle was credited to "Eddie Brock Bugle Photographer". And now look where we are, Movie three and Eddie Brock/Venom is a headlining villain....how things change.

I'm not saying that Robin will be in this franchise, but I'm DEFFINETLY not sayng he won't be.

-R

I think those that believe that the kid has any Robin reference at all are really stretching it. In my opinion you want to see something there, or you want to be able to wrap some type of deeper meaning around the scene. It's a scene with a deprived kid, Batman saves the day, I think that is all it needs to be.

For the homage to Brock in Spiderman I again think you're stretching your hopes and dreams. It's a character in the Spiderman story, just becasuse we all know he becomes Venom later doesn't mean Rami did it for that reason. I'm the first person to say when something doesn't make sense but in this case It's just a moment in the movie where you should smile and enjoy it, not analyze it.

 

[Nepenthes]

I think those that believe that the kid has any Robin reference at all are really stretching it. In my opinion you want to see something there, or you want to be able to wrap some type of deeper meaning around the scene. It's a scene with a deprived kid, Batman saves the day, I think that is all it needs to be.

The kid wears prominent red & green, Batman gives an expensive toy and he appears twice in case you missed it. It's too deliberate so I'm figuring Nolan was expecting/intending that the audience would make some connection. It's just something for the audience to think about.

When people assume it means there is going be a Robin in the franchise, that's stretching it imo.

BTW, it's Jason Todd. Obviously

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The child was in the movie for three reasons, really.

1.) To show just how bad the narrows really were. He was a neglected child, standing out in the rain with his parents fighting and hollering inside the house. He wasn't a bitter kid, he was hopeful, even in the rain with his fueding parents. He represtented the goodness in Gotham that Batman was fighting for.

2.) Batman has always been loved by children. This was a tribute to all of the young fans that have loved Batman for the ages. He was there to give a childs perspective of the Dark Knight. He saw what the adults couldn't. He saw that the Batman was a hero, "Batman will save us".

3.) He was an homage to the character of Robin. Not of any specific incarnation of Robin, be it Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake- but rather just a generic homage to the character. He wore a red short sleeve shirt, with a longsleeve greyish green shirt underneath, he gave hope to Batman, and depended on him in a time of need.

I couldn't agree more; in fact, I actually like both those scenes, and I don't think "Begins" would be the same without them. Bring on the Clown Prince of Crime...

 

[MacLeod]

The kid wears prominent red & green, Batman gives an expensive toy and he appears twice in case you missed it. It's too deliberate so I'm figuring Nolan was expecting/intending that the audience would make some connection. It's just something for the audience to think about.

When people assume it means there is going be a Robin in the franchise, that's stretching it imo.

BTW, it's Jason Todd. Obviously

So, because he's wearing green he's robin? Why not Green Arrow, or Manhunter, or Green Lantern? For the red, why not Superman, or Flash? I know that's that a huge, and wrong, leap, but my point is just because there are colors and a kid it doesn't mean a thing. I know he's there twice but so what? I stick to my theory, it's a deprived kid, Batman is the hope, enjoy the movie. The kid, without a nod to Robin, is just there to fill in gaps to make the audience feel enjoyment.

Chris

 

[Binker]

I just call that kid a Jason Todd-like character (because Jason was a poor kid) that might be an actual Jason Todd character if he returns in the sequel(s) if he is orphan and is killed by the Joker.

And I agree with everyone: no more of these threads.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, we should get back to those threads of people seeing clearly Ra's falling from the train.

 

[MacLeod]

Yeah, we should get back to those threads of people seeing clearly Ra's falling from the train.

Did someone really say that? I know he's suppossed to be somewhat immortal but did someone really say that they saw him fall from the train? A lot of stuff fell from the tracks, the train being one of them, so yes, he fell too but not from the train, with the train. That could be an even bigger stretch than seeing a little kid represent Robin.

 

[El Payaso]

We had a bunch of threads about it, yes.

 

[MacLeod]

That's kind of sad.

 

[El Payaso]

I had lots o' laughs nevertheless.

 

[Nepenthes]

So, because he's wearing green he's robin? Why not Green Arrow, or Manhunter, or Green Lantern? For the red, why not Superman, or Flash? I know that's that a huge, and wrong, leap, but my point is just because there are colors and a kid it doesn't mean a thing. I know he's there twice but so what? I stick to my theory, it's a deprived kid, Batman is the hope, enjoy the movie. The kid, without a nod to Robin, is just there to fill in gaps to make the audience feel enjoyment.

It is a thing because it's too deliberate. You cannot deny that Nolan would've realised that the kid looks like Robin. Nolan could have given him different clothes but I think he intentionaly encouraged the idea (reappearing in the same clothes, giving him nightvision toys which was totally unneccersay in the script - unless to 'hint' at Robin) because he liked the connection. He liked that the audience would see the boy and go 'oh wow, future Robin? cool'. Dosn't mean they're expecting a Robin in a sequel.

I don't get why people resist the idea that the boy is a homage. What's so wrong with that? I hope the kid is stealing tyres in TDK

 

[MacLeod]

It is a thing because it's too deliberate. You cannot deny that Nolan would've realised that the kid looks like Robin. Nolan could have given him different clothes but I think he intentionaly encouraged the idea (reappearing in the same clothes, giving him nightvision toys which was totally unneccersay in the script - unless to 'hint' at Robin) because he liked the connection. He liked that the audience would see the boy and go 'oh wow, future Robin? cool'. Dosn't mean they're expecting a Robin in a sequel.

I don't get why people resist the idea that the boy is a homage. What's so wrong with that? I hope the kid is stealing tyres in TDK

So now the boy looks like Robin? Maybe the boy is just poor or color blind and doesn't have any other clothes. My point is that it's a coincidence, not an homage. Giving a kid nightvision goggles, which I agree was pointless, does not mean he's giving this kid a stockpile of gadgets for when he become Robin. If you're going to give an homage, especially if Nolan is suppossed to be bringing Batman back to his routes, then why wouldn't the homage be towards Dick Grayson? By the time the first Robin starts and ends the kid in Begins would be past the age of being the second Robin. Why don't we just say it's a kid, he's wearing green for some reason, he brings hope to the audience and the city that there is a savior, and call it a day. The reason I'm so uptight about this is because it sounds like more of the Nolan is perfect lore and people look too much into things that may not be there. It's a movie, just enjoy what you see. I see a kid, leave it at that.