Three Reasons for Robin

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

I've no problem with the "Boy Wonder" as it were, I think what's his moment (I'm IMDB-ing)...Chris O'Donnell was quite good in Forever. The only problem I can see with Robin in the next Batman film is the fact that he's going to have to be dumped in fresh, origin story and all...then suiting up, and all the crap that goes with it, better to introduce the character in the next, have the parents killed and then have him give a hand-out in a non-Robin role in the film, and then have him set up as a proper Robin in number 4.

Just because Robin is only in bad films, doesn't necessarily make him a bad character...

That said, if all they bring him in for is silly one liners and innuendos (think "bat-grrrrl" in Batman & Robin) then leave him at home. He might be there to slightly lighten the mood and to give Batman a more positive goal, but this is a dark series, the world in it is more gritty and realistic than the aforementioned Iron Man or most other Marvel films. And trepidation should also be felt in what happened when the 90's films went down the "Gee isn't this fun route".

Oh, and finally, he should be there if the story warrants, not just to have him in the film. If he is not there from the start of thinking about the script its pointless to add him later.

I'd just like to note that I registered for the sole purpose of making this post - after following the Escapist since the second Zero Punctuation on the site.

That said.

When you initially asserted that Robin would make a good addition, I was dubious, but I did not out-and-out dismiss the idea. I find that I share roughly 70% of the ideas you voice here and on the game overthinker, so I didn't rule out the possibility. But I didn't really understand it.

Then I saw Kick-Ass.

Combining what I saw of Hit Girl with the atmosphere of Nolan's Batman, it clicked. I understood. It's not that Robin would be a poor addition, I realized, but that the way Robin is widely portrayed and imagined. He could be done better. He could be done well. And, if so, he could be a gorgeous addition.

It depends on which Robin. Dick Grayson had a frankly bland and kinda boring backstory, but I *loved* him as Nightwing. Jason Todd would be around, but everyone would be waiting for the inevitable parallel with his comic death. Tim Drake is pretty good though, and he'd be a good choice.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier, Batgirl might be a good addition.

I'd appreciate Robin if only to slightly the counter the pretentious "Batman is serious business" approach. Yes, we get it, we see what you're doing. Add a little fun, it's a guy in a batsuit for crying out loud.

Also, I do think that a Batman story without Robin is like a Penutbutter and jelly sandwich with no jelly. Still enjoyable, but missing that little extra zing.

He should be some kid who just randomly turns up and helps, I think then it wouldn't seem so gay him and batman being together all the time.

For once Bob i gotta disagree with you. I don't believe the Nolan franchise requires Robin whatsoever. It's not the direction he's taken with his interpretation and i don't think he should be venturing down that Murder Alley :)

Robin is a superfluous addition that isn't required at this point and the art direction that he's taken would be thrown off kilter by his introduction. This does no mean i am completely against a sidekick appearing in the next film but i would much prefer Nightwing. I know the story would be off kilter but Nightwing fits Nolan's style a lot better than Robin would.

Saying this i would generally prefer to see a sidekick left out from these first three films. A sidekick suggests that Batman is clearly unmanned for the current situation and suggests said additions requirement to defeat whatever villain they may choose. The only real examples i can surmount to would then be super villains which, at that point, would fall far from Nolan's direction of keeping to villains without super powers. His style is to pit Batman against opponents that are as "average" as possible and challenge him in a more cerebral than physical approach.

Needless to say i wouldn't be adverse to the addition of Dick Grayson as Nightwing but i don't think a sidekick is required in the "Nolanverse" and i would definately hate to see this next film with a super villain rather than someone like the Penguin, the Riddler or maybe Scarface and the Ventriloquist

Swiss T

Also I think it would fit with the comics. Batman Begins was pretty much a live action re-telling of Batman: Year One, The Dark Knight borrowed more that a couple elements from Batman: The Long Halloween, now it would fit pretty well with the movie series to follow through with Dark Victory and allow us to have a Robin. The third Batman is supposed to be the last of the Nolan series so it would be nice for him to end it with our Robin. I'm also interested in how Nolan would do Robin with his serious movies?.

That's a very interesting point.. Dark Victory has been held up as the most believable, and best done Batman story involving the tricky colourful component of Robin.

But as has also been pointed out- it needs to be done correctly, and the audience needs to be able to believe in the introduction. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Nolan ends up doing with the final Batman film, but I hope to God it's not the weird camp mess that batman Forever turned into.

Having seen it recently enough, it hasn't aged well at all. O'Donnell is too old and the friendship and respect is poorly developed.
The thing is, Bob is right about Robin. He needs to be there somewhere. Not all the time, but every so often to remind us of the more human side to the Dark Knight. The problem, however, is how they can convincingly introduce the character into the grim and unwelcoming place Gotham is in the Nolan movies without betraying the earlier films dark sensibilities.

Personally, I cannot stand the camp and "joyful" incarnations of Batman. They honestly make me squirm, because they seem so very wrong.
I grew up watching the Batman: The Animated Series from an early age so the interpretations the show follows are the ones that I'm most familiar with, comfortable with, and totally admittedly biased towards. That said, I remember absolutely *loving* it when Robin would appear, because being so young, I identified with him way easier than Batman. Plus he wore a muted costume.
I think that in a dark red, Robin could easily act as a tactical observation/ low intensity intervention agent for the Bale version of Batman. Also, Mr. Lucius Fox could easily adapt the lighter weight Batsuit blue print for even more speed and agility for the former acrobat.

I think that when Batman is done in a camp fashion, it's an insult to the real world tragedy, pain and rage that drives the character. It stops being Batman, and it's just Adam West's beer belly flapping at me for twenty agonising minutes.

I don't think Robin will be seriously considered for the movies, but like you have maddeningly changed my previously immovable stance on the issue, O Bob, you never know what might end up in the script.

If Batman can inspire the crazies, then surely he can inspire the good of Gotham city as well, not just guys in hockey pads. I agree, Robin needs to be there, but the show won't collapse without him.

Damn you and your convincing argument, Bob! :P

Even with the "Batman and Robin" image (in full bat nipple glory), you haven't addressed the main complaint that everybody is screaming at you MovieBob, namely what happened to the Batman movies when they became more fun and brought Robin aboard. Slice it anyway you want, Robin has to bring a little humor/camp value, and that would instantly undo the Batman people can take seriosly that Nolan worked so hard to make. Making Batman about the fun would be a horrible step backwards. Not to say Superheros can't be about fun, we have Iron Man for that, but darkness is the DARK Knight's speciality, and straying from that has always caused horrible results.

And you think a Bat-Iphone would work much better then a Bat Credit Card? Just saying.

As long as they can pull it off effectively, I say go for it. The problem is pulling it off effectively, to paraphrase Kevin Conroy's Batman in Gotham Knight: Prototype, "I am willing to give my life for this city, Lucius, but it has to be my life, no one else's." How do you convince this character to put a child/teenager/young adult/whatever in a most dangerous occupation? As good as Nolan is, I don`t know if he can give us a realistic answer. Hell, I`m sure he doesn't know if he can give a realistic answer.

And honestly, I'm fine with that; I don`t care if they use Robin or not. Just as long as they get one thing right:


Riddle me this, does a Doctor have what it takes to take on the Bat?

I agree about Robin...

I will also say that I think one of the problems with translating super heroes to movies is that part of what keeps comics going is that they exist in a shared universe, with tons of characters and titles, all of which keep interweaving. A lot of characters, especially as they exist now, don't work all that well when portrayed as essentially the only odd bit/super hero in the entire world.

Short of doing a number of TV shows running in succession on the same primetime network and constantly crossing over characters (like certain old Westerns like "Rawhide" and it's ilk did), I really don't think that the comic genere is capable of really being translated to film in a way that it works like in the comics.

In general the interwoven natures of comics means that no attempt to "reboot" the characters is ever going to really work except perhaps for a short term cash in.

Speaking of Batman, even nowadays he has a MASSIVE supporting cast besides his rogues gallery. Consider that the mentorship thing in "Batman Beyond Worked", but then again the character has already been working with/mentoring what are probably dozens of characters by now. We've had several Batgirls, The Huntress (on and off), a number of Robins, Azrael (who Batman picked as a successor, and we know how that turned out), and others.

A while back there was this storyline called "Bruce Wayne, Murderer" I believe, which touched on these elements. Basically one of the guys who taught Batman to be Batman (he didn't have one trainer like in the movies) happened to be both the world's greatest assasin/mercenary, and somewhat miffed over the fact that Batman took his adopted daughter (Cassandra Cain) as the new Batgirl for a while. He framed Bruce Wayne for murder in such a way that the various costumed heroes who KNEW he was batman had massive doubts, doubts of varying degree based on how well they actually knew him. Something that got to the center of Batman's social circle. On top of this he more or less let's the bad guy get away due to what we could say is a fairly complex relationship with one of his mentors, as a counterpoint of sorts to the people he was teaching.


As far as bringing Bucky back in Captain America... well that might not be the kind of sidekick you'd expect. Bucky has been redefined a couple of times, and we've had the original (non clone) Bucky running around as "Winter Soldier" acting as an Arche Nemisis for Captain America. The concept being that Bucky was deep black ops, whose death was faked. His job was pretty much to do all the nasty stuff in the shadows that an icon like Captain America couldn't do. So basically while Cap was being fairly upbeat, Bucky was machinegunning the kids in the shadows and doing all the nasty, wartime "cleanup" of the sort we know happened but true to forget about, without Cap knowing about it.

Given the relative popularity of Winter Soldier, I'm not sure if we're going to be seeing a traditional Bucky. That might very well be the "grim and gritty" right there.

I like Robin and would like to see him done correctly. Oh god... Chris O'Donnell. *shudder*
But I would like to see Robin introduced and have Black Mask as the villain. It would tie up the whole arc rather well. BB: training, coming into own, Batman versus Mentor; TDK: established ass-kicker, introduction of nemesis, low second act, Batman versus Anti-Batman; Batman 3 with Robin and Black Mask: redemption through Robin, harmonizing the Bruce-Batman relationship within himself, Batman Versus Black Mask as what Batman versus what he could potentially be.
Its perfect!


My problem lies with the simple thing about Robin. He's Robin! He dresses up in green tights with a red unitard and his mask consists of a piece of fabric on his face. He looks ridiculous. More than that the premise is that an orphan is recruited by Batman to fight crime in the afformentioned outfit. It sounds silly when you consider Batman is on a lone mission, doesn't want anyone to get hurt (As Kevin Conroy said in Gotham Knight "I'm willing to put my life on the line, but only my life.") and wouldn't want a kid working with him, before you even think what the Commisioner would think of the situation.

as mentioned above, read Dark Victory, which seeing as Year One and the Loeb/Sale collaborations have been cited numerous times by Nolan as stylistic influence, is likely a good blueprint for how Nolan would handle the story. pretty much all of the points you raise are specifically brought up and covered in that story.

Meh, it could work, and it could work really well if it does work... but this is Hollywood, this is the third movie in a series that's making tons of money, we might have gotten lucky with the first two being mostly unmeddled with by big shot producers who only want to make money, but I don't think we're going to be so lucky with number three.

1) this is WB we're talking about, a studio rolling in more Harry Potter and Batman money than they know what to do with, on top of being on the cusp of launching a wave of DC movies to ride out Marvel's newfound success.

2) they know which side their bread is buttered. WB is well aware of the potential repercussions of losing Nolan. have you seen the fucking Inception trailer? that is what they are letting him do with their money to keep him happy enough to come back for Batman 3. for christ sake they put him in charge of handpicking the folks to make the next Superman. they know damn good and well that Nolan(and to a greater extent, DC properties in general) is their golden goose once the Harry Potter well finally runs dry after Deathly Hallows pt. 2, and so far they have displayed amazing restraint in allowing the creatives to do their fucking jobs, and it's largely been a profitable decision.

seriously, this is the studio that's shown so much commitment to letting the director/writers do their thing that they allowed Superman Returns to be made, a movie that actually could have been improved by executive meddling.

3) Nolan just handed them the #3 highest grossing domestic box office of all time. unless Inception flops HARD, he's got Carte Blanche status for the foreseeable future at WB.

That "superheroes at the bar night out" would be a great movie!
Or at least a good sketch on SNL.

Yeaah I do believe that Robin should be in the next Batman game, but I don't want it to go all out sunshine lollipop happy, doubt that'll happen but still no.

Way to remind me of the grossness that is the Human Centipede.

That part made me giggle

I disagree, on every level. Let me take apart your points, in reverse order.
3) Dark is Dead: Mr. Chipman, i have a lot of respect for you, but fuck that sideways. Okay, yes Iron Man and such are all colorful and quirky. Saying we should apply that to Batman is something like saying "Okay, the Beatles were nice and quirky and psychedelic. Bruce Springsteen, stop being dark and introspective and intellectual and be more like the Beatles." Both are good, but they have their distinct style and trying to make them adhere to each other is going to ruin them. They tried to make Wonder Woman more Batmanish and it SUCKED. Plus, there is still PLENTY of dark places for the Batman trilogy to go. Knightfall anyone?

2) He Make Sense: he really doesn't. "Grrr, I'm a dark anti-social, possibly slightly insane loner who's trying to hide my identity. I think I'll adopt an annoying, talkative kid who dresses in bright colors cuz he's too young to get the concept of Stealth and give people a MASSSSSIVE hint as to my secret identity. That's not massively out of character." Robin can almost sense in the comic world, but in film the massive plot holes and out of character acting he represents will be more noticeable.

1) He Belongs There: This is a matter of personal taste, but if I ever noticed he wasn't there, it was the revel in his absence. Plus, that doesn't really fit with the story now. Quick, what 2 comics are they basing their concept of Batman on in the movies? That's right, Year One and The Long Halloween. Quick, which one included Robin? That's right neither. Quick, what was the follow up to Long Halloween that included Robin? Don't remember? Dark Victory. Story was still good, art was better than ever, writing was still good...why does no one remember it? Maybe Robin ruined it.

NONE of this addresses the fact that including Robin is at best a moral lapse by Batman and at worse an actively amoral act. He is dragging CHILDREN into what amounts to a war. Let's run down the Robin's and what happened to them?

Dick Grayson? Emotionally scarred from having a man die in his stead and being unable to stop it.

Jason Todd? Beaten to death by the Joker.

Tim Drake? Had to listen to his father die on the phone.


Do we sense a pattern? Okay, sure they want to join, but their FUCKING KIDS! If they can't join the military until their 18, they shouldn't be able to join Batman until their 18. Part of the point of the Death in the Family storyline was to wake Batman up to the fact that he is putting children in danger and that he shouldn't be doing it. DC of course fucked that royal (DC has a habit of fucking up a good thing, see: The Secret Six) but there is no reason to do it to the Batman movies.

I await the fanrage at my Robin hatred. Hit me.

Those were all pretty convincing arguments...

Although I prefer my super heroes gritty, dark and edgy, and all that.

Reading this reminds me of how stupid the ending of The Dark Knight is. Not only would it have made much more sense for Batman to have blamed Two-Face's actions on the Joker, it would of hammered in the fact that the Joker succeeded 100% in demeaning someone to his own level.

In the current version, Gotham's symbol of justice has been compromised (the world thinks he is now a serial killer) for no adequate reason. It is the most significant plot hole (of many) in the movie, because it dictates how the sequel will turn out: It will be some tedious story in which the superhero has to prove to the world that he isn't a bad guy. Kind of boring, since we already know he isn't a bad guy. Plus the Spiderman films have already gone with that exact same plot in every movie.

Y-yyeah... All the super hero series are kind of predictable in the first place. Of COURSE you expect the titular hero to, you know, succeed, and usually survive along with it as well. Especially in most movies.

Examples: All superhero movies I can think of... The whole Rocky series... The whole Karate Kid series... And the list goes on.

And when it comes to the ending of Dark Knight, I don't quite remember it fully despite having watched the movie again very recently. What happened to Joker after the ships didn't blow up and Batman beat him up, that completely escapes my mind... So I can't really judge your suggestion for the ending. Although the actual ending present in the movie was pretty powerful, in my opinion, plot holes or not.

Also, this might be going a bit offtopic here, but does anyone remember that scene from some older Batman movie (I forget which one) where Batman and Robin spend like 5 minutes arguing and fighting about who should bone Poison Ivy or what's her name?

I once came across that movie during one of my favored summer all-nighter fun marathons, and that movie cracked me up...

Once again I fail to see what Movie Bob is talking about.

Please don't add Robin to the movies, I never liked the character. I fail to see why people think he is important. For any comic you may have read that had Robin, I can list better ones without him. But hey, lets add kids if you feel left out and lacking after watching the Dark Knight movies.

Again, the obsession some people have over hit girl is rather unsettling to me. Calm down guys, 12 year olds aren't the answer to how movies become better.


I wanted to mention something regarding your recent Intermission.

In some of your reviews recently, you've expressed a regular disdain for individuals who you proclaim to be of the "hardcore" variety. A recurrent theme is that such individuals are engaging in braggadocio or are trying to hide the childish nature of their own interest.

I bring this up because I wanted to post an alternative relating to your current review:

"The original run of big-budget Batman movies ran concurrent with the 90s, the era when comic publishers first fully realized there was a (temporary) goldmine in tailoring the material toward 30-something hardcore fans rather than the younger audience that had typically sustained them. "Grim 'n' Gritty" books doing weak imitations of Watchmen were in, anything that reminded "mature" fans of the material's inherent juvenility were out."

From this quote, one issue that you bring up seems to be that people enjoy gritty material not just because it often allows exploration of more complicated, "mature", or dark subject matter, but because it allows them to hide the fact that they are exploring inherently childlike interests and genres which would be questionable for whatever reason as an adult.
The omission of Robin is, from what I understand of your review, something that you believe will limit Nolan's franchise and will not allow viewers to experience the true potential you believe is inherent in the concept.

Here is my issue with adding Robin as a character, and to the usual complaint that the environment needs more color and youthful vigor, in media such as video games and movies: I don't seen it done well very often. I'm serious. In many cases, substandard material is produced which isn't engaging, or well-designed, or even interesting, but it's given a cheery polish which allows young people to ignore the lack of quality (think really bad anime or Saturday morning cartoon shows).

My concern would be that it would basically end up as...well, as Adam West's Batman with slightly better cameras. That the color and vigor would be an excuse for writers to ignore fundamental rules about how to write and how to create tension and hook the audience in, and that it would end with Bat-shark repellent.

That's the intellectual reason. As for emotional reasons? Well, you know how some people enjoy watching old films or playing Wii's virtual console because it reminds them of all their fond memories of times gone by and allows them to ignore the constraints of today by pretending to be children again?

Yeah, some of us don't have that. Please understand that for some people, our childhood culture and icons are not associated with that same degree of light and warmth. For some of us, our childhoods were things we want to forget as quickly as possible.

Part of this is because of our perceived inadequacies as adults. I must acknowledge that this is a factor. To us, watching Robin in bright green and red would just remind us of how far we haven't gotten in our lives and how it's our fault for failing to meet the standards of the real world.

Part of this, though, is because...some of us didn't like our childhoods. I don't miss much of it. Most of it I would much rather forget as soon as possible. I'm trying not to be emo here (too late, I know) but for some of us, our childhoods are the opposite of that sensation you get when you play Super Mario Brothers 3. That warmth and light, it's gone. It's quiet, and cold, and dark, and fearful. Some of us just don't want to go back there. It is not a happy place. It's the "adult" material, the "hardcore" material that allows us a place to be free and explore ideas and identities because it is separate from that past. Bringing up that past just brings up bad memories.

This is not to say that Robin couldn't work in Batman. If anyone could make it work, Nolan could. Just please understand that, when some of us don't respond to this "childish" material with warmth and affection, it isn't just being hypocritical or egotistical. We're not one-note, soulless assholes. Some of us just don't like what we're being reminded of.

I still disagree with the Robin thesis. My reasons being (these will be less well written those of moviebob).

1. Nolan is only directing one more movie. You can't fit any decent Robin Arcs into one movie. You can't have the red hood, you can't have Nightwing and you can't even really have a pure origins story, it would take way too much of the movie away from batman and (the Riddler?)

2. Marvel is marvel, DC is DC. Their film adaptations are wildly different. Saying Bucky would work is not the same as saying Robin would work. The Marvel films are ensemble pieces, gearing towards a re-imagining of the glorious Avengers, they are flashy they are beautiful. The DC films are largely character pieces they make you identify strongly the lead role. Jonah Hex and Green Lantern look to be going this way as well. They are not especially flashy, the action is not the focus as much as it is in the marvel films, you don't see huge choreographed action scenes in superman or batman. A scene with Batman and Robin taking out large gangs buts me in mind of the matrix, and god I don't want to see that.

3. Okay I'm going to take a bit of a leap here and say a film involving robin will end one of two ways. A) Batman will be forced to 'choose'...again, between something he cares for and the greater good (hackneyed). and B) Batman will dismiss robin, get in a trap and robin will save him at the last minute, proving that even batman needs a friend. Neither of these appeal to me, they condescend to the viewer and they don't fit with this iteration of batman.
(shred me for this part if you like)

I'm 18 years old so the first contact I had with Robin in a Batman movie was, well, Batman and Robin. Naive as I was back then, I didn't realize what was wrong about that movie. Still, I liked the Robin on the Teen Titans series on Cartoon Network. He was a good mixture of being pushed to the edge, mostly involving Slade (voiced awesomely by Ron Perlman), but he also had some more tame, human moments, like whenever he was hanging around Starfire. I would like to see some variation on that on the new Batman movies.

I completly agree with what you're saying. I really liked how they depicted Robin in Teen Titans and if they were able to find a suitable young actor it could really fit into the film adaption. Maybe even remove the stink that is Batman and Robin. Terrible, terrible piece of cinema.

I'm not saying Robin is a bad idea. Hell, when I responded to the video you referred to, I said that while Robin might sound like a decent idea on paper, the studio, producer, and whoever else has their fingers in this pie aren't going to go for it.

The only reason (from what I've heard/read/come to understand) is that the actor playing Batman doesn't want to stick around for a sidekick. So what it is ultimately going to come down to, is whether they keep their golden-boy Christan Bale or add in the sensible idea of a side-kick. I would say it is smarter to keep Bale ONLY because the original Batman movies that played in the 90's had a horrible record of changing their Batman actor a couple of times and I don't think these movies need to repeat that mistake.

I'm not against Robin, but I am against having to find a new Batman actor.

I still can't decide whether or not I like Movie Bob's tendency of replying to people who criticize him. On one hand, it's slightly unprofessional and makes him come off as more of you're average Internet whiner and less like an actual movie critic. But on the other hand that's not necessarily a bad thing is it?

Flat out honest: don't feel like reading through all of the comments so I'm gonna be an asshole and just plug a post at the end.

I think the major issue here would be the refusal of the brother Nolans to include something they don't like. It's like Sam Raimi and Venom. However, my argument for Venom is the same as my argument for Robin. Even if you don't like the common interpretations, you can choose to work an interpretation you like into it. Venom has potential as a villain, though knowing Sam Raimi's love of classic horror his Venom would be campy, silly and made of a lot of rubber.

However, considering that the brothers Nolan are just awesome in general (Prestige is one of my favorite films evar, more so than Batman, and I feel the need to see all his earlier films now as well as to check out Inception), I imagine they could do a lot of cool shit with a young, teenage Robin. The question is, will they? Or will they just abandon the character?

I think I'd honestly rather have Robin than Catwoman, though it sounds as if people are leaning for the latter (though in my mind, Scarlett Johansson as Catwoman....God, the thought itself is enough to make me want to make a fluffer-nutter ;P ). We'll see, but if you don't see Robin appear in a Nolan Batman flick, then the studio may force him in when another director takes over. Which already could mean death to the franchise with or without the potential for screwing up a character.

You know Bob, as much as I agree with you, I very much disagree with this for the following reasons:

1. Batman is a noir piece. Noir by nature is dark. It's awesome because its pulp detective stories such as Sam Spade. Batman is the world's greatest detective, and a pulp detective at that. To make him into a lighter Silver-Age hero would betray his original purpose. After all, the comics code authority is what neutered him into the bumbling do-gooder he was.

2. Marvel can afford to be lighter because that's how their stories are. The darkest is the X-Men franchise, and we all know how fucked royally that became. X-Men deals with the very real issues of discrimination in today's world and uses the Mutants as a metaphor as such. Why isn't there room for Silver-Age shenanigans? Because it was made after. Most of Marvel's stock was made during or after the silver age and still hold on to their roots in one way or another. Batman isn't a silver-age hero: he's a golden-age hero when pulp detective stories were everywhere and he could actually take on murderers and psychopaths. DC doesn't need to ape Marvel's style because they have their own. Besides, Superman or the Flash or even the Green Lantern can hold that spot for the lighter and softer story.

3. There's still the Joel Shumaker stigmata in play. Like it or not, Shumacker's abomination is still a deep and painful scar for most if not all of us Batman fans. Making the next Batman film into a Silver-Age throwback would bring back those old scars.

4. There's no way in hell Christopher Nolan would play ball with that idea. Nolan is possibly the best thing to happen to Batman in a very long time. He's the only guy in Hollywood right now we can trust right now to handle the Batman mythos with the respect it deserves. Do we really want it in the hands of someone else?! I didn't think so

5. Robin brings with him the whole pedophilia thing. In today's world of To Catch a Predator, Amber Alerts, and Sexual Predator status, it would be a tad awkward to put in a young boy as his ward. Pedophilia has been milked, bled, and overexposed for all it's worth thanks to the fearmongering news media, and not even the World's Greatest Detective is safe.

6. Batman, like the best pulp detectives, works alone. Sam Spade didn't need a partner, and most noir detectives don't need partners. His dynamic just works better that way.

Just my $0.02.

Yes. A thousand times, yes.

Thank you, Bob, for putting into writing what I am often too enraged to convey. Robin is an essential part of the Batman character, and super pets are totally awesome too. Making Batman or any superhero "darker", or "grittier" is just a coat of varnish shielding people from anything potentially human about them. Robin kicks ass.

Some photos of the wall above my desk should help explain my long-standing position on the matter of superheroes.

The only reason (from what I've heard/read/come to understand) is that the actor playing Batman doesn't want to stick around for a sidekick. So what it is ultimately going to come down to, is whether they keep their golden-boy Christan Bale or add in the sensible idea of a side-kick. I would say it is smarter to keep Bale ONLY because the original Batman movies that played in the 90's had a horrible record of changing their Batman actor a couple of times and I don't think these movies need to repeat that mistake.

I'm not against Robin, but I am against having to find a new Batman actor.

Wait, getting Robin would mean getting rid of Solid Snake as Batman? I completely recend my last post. WE MUST HAVE ROBIN! I don't care if Nolan has doubts about the character. HE CAN PULL IT OFF!

Thank you, Bob, you've just vocalised what I have always thought about Robin. He's an essential part of Batman growth as a character, and a strong individual at that. Remember, this kid - this 14 year old - becomes the first person other than Alfred that Bruce trusts enough to reveal his secret identity to, plus (depending on what back story you follow) he has the stones to go out looking to avenge his parents' death on his own and singlehandedly figures out how to get into the bat-cave.

I think the one thing we can all take away form this is Chris O'Donnell pretty much buried the character.

P.S. To all the guys who keep raising the "green tights" issue, let's not forget that Batman used to wear grey tights too. Try to use your imaginations, Robin's costume has been reworked numerous times in the comics.

I read somewhere that Nolan claims Robin "isn't for a few more movies." Also, Christian Bale says that if they bring Robin in, he's out. I don't think WB is willing to replace Batman for the third movie, a SECOND time. 'Cause that really worked out when they did that for Batman Forever.

Although I like moviebob's ideas and comments for the movies, I hate Robin in the Batman world.

First of all, Robin is there for making the series more kid oriented and funnier.
But Batman is a detective, he is in a noir world.
Look to first Batman comics. Look to Batman The Animated Series. Look to first Batman and Batman Begins movies. They are great, they are wonderful, they are unique.
But with the Robin comes (to the comics, to the movies, to the tv shows), everything goes very cheesy.
I don't like him.

Batman + Robin = Hellboy + Sponge Bob

Sounds good to me. Bring on the birdie!

If the Dark Knight is to be the middle of a trilogy (because what isn't these days?) it makes sense for this one to be darker than the end. The introduction of Robin could buoy up the last film of the three to float more towards the Marvel type of fun.

Let's just hope it doesn't catapult past "fun" into "shameless camp"...

I won't be surprised to see Catwoman turn up in the next movie (I mean, since they aren't interested in the more "out-there" characters and they've already blown through Joker, Two-Face and Scarecrow who else is there?) but I'll be surprised if she "works."

This is another inherently-limiting thing about the way they tend to approach superhero movies in general: It ALWAYS has to be a big, escalating, everything-on-the-line action epic, and it ALWAYS has to get bigger. Catwoman, honestly, isn't a "big" character without a total revision. She's a thief, basically. The most interesting thing about her is that she's probably among the SANEST people in Batman mythology - no outlandish "damage," no crippling psychological hangups (short of probable risk-addiction) for the most part, she likes nice things and would rather just steal them. That in itself is fun - a hero who's out of his damn mind versus an entirely self-aware, matter-of-fact adversary - but it's not really the stuff of a "Dark Knight"-style epic.

A 90 minute gender-swapped "Thomas Crowne Affair" with people in bat/cat outfits? That you could do, and it'd probably be AWESOME - but it ain't gonna happen ;)

For a moment, I thought it was an article justifying my own existence, to which I would've replied "don't bother".
I hate being named after some bloody sidekick.

Robin will not show up in the next movie. Christian Bale said he would leave Batman if Robin was ever introduced.

But hey they could switch lead actors that would be...ugh.

Robin just makes things goofy, it doesn't try to, but the whole side-kick angle never really works out.

Thats why a Detective Gordon and a Warmachine are more realistic to add to these new superhero movies because they are partners of almost the same caliber as the superhero (in some ways), which allows them to be taken seriously.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here