The Dark Knight Rises Who do you want for Robin?

[The Batman]

The Fact that people dont want Robin, a guy who, is as much as an icon as Batman in the film, just shows how much Batman Fans know now a days.

Not having Robin in the film is like not having Alfred or Gordon. It's just a slap in the face to a character that deserves better. Now, if we were talking about having jason todd or tim drake in the film, then i'd agree, but Dick Greyson is an ICON. He's the Ultimate Superhero sidekick. the most famous one.

 

[spdrknight]

Just because a character is an icon doesn't mean that character has to be in the movies.

 

[The Batman]

fine, than bruce wayne dosent have to be in the next movie....

 

[GL1]

The Fact that people dont want Robin, a guy who, is as much as an icon as Batman in the film, just shows how much Batman Fans know now a days.

Not having Robin in the film is like not having Alfred or Gordon. It's just a slap in the face to a character that deserves better. Now, if we were talking about having jason todd or tim drake in the film, then i'd agree, but Dick Greyson is an ICON. He's the Ultimate Superhero sidekick. the most famous one.

Cool... now I get to type: "Absolute agreement, man..."

 

[Spidey-Bat]

fine, than bruce wayne dosent have to be in the next movie....

Batman and Dick maybe be icons. But Batman is the central character whereas Dick isn't. So he doesn't need to be in the movies.

 

[The Batman]

Ok, then Alfred and Gordon dont need to be in the movies, because they're not the main character. In fact, all of Batman's supporting characters dont need to be in the film.

 

[Two-Face]

Look people wanted Batman doing solo not team up and you know Batman works better with out Robin

 

[spdrknight]

Ok, then Alfred and Gordon dont need to be in the movies, because they're not the main character. In fact, all of Batman's supporting characters dont need to be in the film.

That is stupid... just because some doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you have to throw a tantrum and say "fine then, no one has to be in it then BUT batman".

There are reasons for some characters and there are reasons for others. Robin doesn't fullfil a large void and add a large significant part to Batman... Gorgon and Alfred do. You may argue that Robin keeps Batman from going completely into the dark and going insane... but Alfred also does that in a way and I would rather see Bruce/Bats deal with those demons himself. You need villians in the film... you need Alfred because he fills that need in Bruce's life for a Father-figure. Gordon is there to represent the side of the law that is untained by corruption, he is the "ideal" image of good in Gotham City while Batman is the image of that need to cross the line sometimes in order to get things done. I don't see a huge need for Robin, he doesn't have to come in. But Bruce/Bats needs supporting characters to play off of, or the whole movie is going to be kind of boring.

 

[The Batman]

Robin exists because he can bring out a brighter side of Batman that Alfred can't. Even if Bruce is an eternal pessimist, Dick can crack jokes, act overly excited about crimefighting, etc. Robin forces Bruce to care more and not be so wrapped up in his own darkness. Dick brings out the more heroic side.

 

[GL1]

That is stupid... just because some doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you have to throw a tantrum and say "fine then, no one has to be in it then BUT batman".

There are reasons for some characters and there are reasons for others. Robin doesn't fullfil a large void and add a large significant part to Batman... Gorgon and Alfred do. You may argue that Robin keeps Batman from going completely into the dark and going insane... but Alfred also does that in a way and I would rather see Bruce/Bats deal with those demons himself. You need villians in the film... you need Alfred because he fills that need in Bruce's life for a Father-figure. Gordon is there to represent the side of the law that is untained by corruption, he is the "ideal" image of good in Gotham City while Batman is the image of that need to cross the line sometimes in order to get things done. I don't see a huge need for Robin, he doesn't have to come in. But Bruce/Bats needs supporting characters to play off of, or the whole movie is going to be kind of boring.

That's not a tantrum... that's using bad logic on the arguer to show them their thorough folly.

As for character reasons, I believe you are confusing "in-character reasons" like adopting Grayson to keep away from the dark side and "out of character" or writer reasons, like giving Bats time with Gordon to show how the uncorrupted law (which is corrupt in ways) and the corrupted form of justice (batman's vengeance-laden mission) intersect.

A writer reason for Grayson would be in order to explore themes of the future and give a viceral form of Bruce's self reflection in his relation to what is, in some ways, a younger version of himself. Robin gives us not only a clear and touching view on how Bruce sees himself... by intersecting Bruce, a world-travelled warrior and Grayson, a sidekick (movie-wise, not comic-book wise) with his own vengeance you not only get to see Batman in a new role, an authority that brings out the good in people through his own hardcore methods, but you get to examine any shared theme between Batman and Robin with a new light. Loss. Sacrifice. Venegance. Commitment. Fathers and Sons. You name it, a scene with Robin can highlight just as well, if not better than Gordon or Alfred.

Of course, many things that you can use Robin for writer-wise, can be done with other, less-similar characters, but the same can be said for any character, except of course, the central one, Batman.

In conclusion: Robin fills as much of a void and is as large a part of Batman as any other Batman supporting characer. Including Gordon and Alfred, and does so for the reasons listed above, not the reason the Batman character would give: "He keeps me from going insane..."

 

[spdrknight]

That's not a tantrum... that's using bad logic on the arguer to show them their thorough folly.

As for character reasons, I believe you are confusing "in-character reasons" like adopting Grayson to keep away from the dark side and "out of character" or writer reasons, like giving Bats time with Gordon to show how the uncorrupted law (which is corrupt in ways) and the corrupted form of justice (batman's vengeance-laden mission) intersect.

A writer reason for Grayson would be in order to explore themes of the future and give a viceral form of Bruce's self reflection in his relation to what is, in some ways, a younger version of himself. Robin gives us not only a clear and touching view on how Bruce sees himself... by intersecting Bruce, a world-travelled warrior and Grayson, a sidekick (movie-wise, not comic-book wise) with his own vengeance you not only get to see Batman in a new role, an authority that brings out the good in people through his own hardcore methods, but you get to examine any shared theme between Batman and Robin with a new light. Loss. Sacrifice. Venegance. Commitment. Fathers and Sons. You name it, a scene with Robin can highlight just as well, if not better than Gordon or Alfred.

Of course, many things that you can use Robin for writer-wise, can be done with other, less-similar characters, but the same can be said for any character, except of course, the central one, Batman.

In conclusion: Robin fills as much of a void and is as large a part of Batman as any other Batman supporting characer. Including Gordon and Alfred, and does so for the reasons listed above, not the reason the Batman character would give: "He keeps me from going insane..."

I understand your reasoning, it makes perfect sense too. I see the reason for a Robin... but I still don't think there is this large reason for putting him in the franchise, not in the second or third film at least. But I don't think Robin should be in the films just because he is in the comics, that isn't a good reason. If the filmmakers can find a way to introduce Dick and not turn the franchise to a more lighter side. This is just my opinoun, but I also see your logic and it's sound.

 

[raybia]

The Origins of Robin, the Boy Wonder
Did you Know...?, Scoop, Friday, January 03, 2003

Did you know that Batman's faithful young sidekick, Robin, didn't start off as a superhero? In fact, with his first 1940 appearance (in Detective Comics #38), Robin was a circus star!

As Dick Grayson, he was a member of the family circus act The Flying Graysons - an act that consisted of Dick and his parents. They were the toast of the circus, but a malicious gang of thugs, led by a creep called Zucco, had other plans in store for them. It all started when Dick overheard a meeting between the owner of the circus, named Mr. Haley, and members of the gang. As it was, they wanted money or else there would be serious accidents with the circus. And sure enough, when Haley didn't heed the gang's warning, they slicked the tightropes of The Flying Graysons with acid. Then, right in the middle of a performance, as the family was about to perform their most death-defying feat - the triple spin - tragedy struck. Dick's mother and father fell to their deaths, leaving Dick lost, alone, and wanting help.

In fact, he was set to seek help from the police when - lo and behold! - Batman appeared. No stranger to the horror of losing his parents, Batman assured the young boy that going to the police would solve nothing - and could only make matters worse - as the whole town was already so deeply entrenched in Zucco's gang. So, the boy asked if Batman would take him on as his protégé, and that very day, headed to the Batcave where he took a candlelight vow to fight crime and uphold justice at all costs. And Dick Grayson went from a child on the brink of being orphaned to becoming the one and only Robin, The Boy Wonder.

Jerry Robinson created Robin because he thought that his various adventures and exploits would appeal to kids. He also made no bones about the fact that his character so closely resembled Robin Hood - in name and appearance as well as in deed. In fact, Robinson openly admitted that the Boy Wonder was inspired from Robin Hood, going so far as to have him refer to himself as the “young Robin Hood of the day.”

And to this day, the Boy Wonder has been making the adventures of Batman all the more wonderful.

 

[raybia]

Robin was created to attract kids for the 1940's to Batman.

Do we need Robin to attract kids of the 21st century or can writers and Nolan make Batman cool enough to attract them?

 

[Two-Face]

I still don't want Robin in Batman Begins movies but he's great charater in comics.

 

[Till_the_End]

Well we all want the movies to focus on Batman/Bruce. But that also means that the character has to develop. He can’t just be the Dark Knight all the time. So what could make the character develop? Well women is one idea, like Talia or Catwoman, but isn’t that going to be too simple? I think it would work good if he became really dark in the second movie and than a young boy brings some light into his life in the third movie. Not necessarily Robin, but Dick Grayson.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Makulie Kulken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(sp?)
(kid from home alone the original 2)

 

[Two-Face]

Kevin: OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Infinity9999x]

haha great pic.
---oh guys jk
*zips up flame proof vest anyways*

 

[Amazing Afroman]

Eventually robin is going to show up. You can't simply ignore the character, and what's more if it is executed well, unlike the crapfest in the last two films, there will be nothing to complain about. Robin is batman's concious, the balance that at times reminds Bruce what he's fighting for. If you never want the character to develop that's great and all but for me at least that's the point of the story.


Courtesy of Super Scar

 

[Till_the_End]

Yes yes Makulie Kulken.....


and for the Joker .....................

Now he does look like him.

 

[Amazing Afroman]

LOL!

 

[spdrknight]

Courtesy of Super Scar

If Robin enters the franchise, this is what I would like to see in the way of a costume... it is the right age as well.

 

[GL1]

I understand your reasoning, it makes perfect sense too. I see the reason for a Robin... but I still don't think there is this large reason for putting him in the franchise, not in the second or third film at least. But I don't think Robin should be in the films just because he is in the comics, that isn't a good reason. If the filmmakers can find a way to introduce Dick and not turn the franchise to a more lighter side. This is just my opinoun, but I also see your logic and it's sound.

Makes sense... I agree by and large, especially the not turning the franchise light bit... creepy kids are fun...

 

[Sauron]

I say no Robin but, if he is in one of the sequels he should be oplayed by an unknown around 15 years old.

They shouldn't change the costume 'cause since they changed the suit in the comics to the Tim Drake costume that suit is perfect for a movie. It came off okay in "Forever" but they screwed it up. But, if they have the collar that covers his neck and don't pull it down like in Forever, and ofcourse no nipples and a material like Bales and it'll be cool.

 

[spiderman water]

hell no this movie don't need no side kick.