Three Reasons for Robin

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

As I said in the last thread, it really just seems right. And Two-face is set up, which is perfect for a Robin origin. It might not be cheery at first, but...

Though, I must admit, while I don't read comics much, the few bits I have picked up make me think I'd be much more of a Cassandra Cain fan. Shame how badly she got her character screwed up after that time skip thing, though.

They should totaly get Noah Ringer to play Robin. Have you seen that kid in The Last Airbender trailers? He would be so bad@$$.

I really like the idea of having Robin back in the Batman movies. But having said that I believe that Robin should be kept younger kind of like what Kick-Ass did with Hit-girl. they should have him 14 or younger if possible I hated that Last Batman films that had Chris O'Donnell 20-somthing trying to play the BOY wonder. I just didn't work

Three reasons NOT for Robin:

1. Shia LaBeouf.
2. Shia LaBeouf.
3. Shia LaBeouf.

And Bob, you know as well as I do that they're going to cast him. This is the studio who announced that they would no longer make superhero movies with female main characters because CATWOMAN was a flop. Do you think they'll do THIS right?

Oh, and another reason: Once they have Robin, they're not going to stop. They're going to have Batgirl next, and though you may not think that's a bad thing now, let's see how gung-ho Bob is once they cast Miley Cyrus.

MovieBob:
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. )

Also she's the Daughter of Carmine "The Roman" Falcone... which is pretty interesting and I think they could use that to some extent in the new movie... They won't, but they could. I would like to see Catwoman portrayed a little more accurately in the movies, in every movie that has featured her (with the exception of the really old camp versions)she as this murder/revenge thing going on... what happened to the thrill seeking hooker story arc?.

Speaking of villains... I'm not sure who they could really use for the new movie. Most have been checked off because their too over the top for the series, Riddiler could be used but he's pretty much just another Joker. Raziel could possibly make it as a villain, an over the top Batman imitator who starts out well but goes too far, then wont step down from the mantle. Could lead to a few decent fight scenes at the climax of the film... the problem with that idea is that I don't think it's a good way to finish off a movie series.

Sylocat:
Three reasons NOT for Robin:

1. Shia LaBeouf.
2. Shia LaBeouf.
3. Shia LaBeouf.

And Bob, you know as well as I do that they're going to cast him. This is the studio who announced that they would no longer make superhero movies with female main characters because CATWOMAN was a flop. Do you think they'll do THIS right?

Oh, and another reason: Once they have Robin, they're not going to stop. They're going to have Batgirl next, and though you may not think that's a bad thing now, let's see how gung-ho Bob is once they cast Miley Cyrus.

Shia Labeouf (in my opinion) isn't a bad actor, just seems to get horrid scripts and he tends to make poor role choices... that or just the financially beneficial ones. I think with the right director and script behind him he could do well in a movie. Also this is Christopher Nolan doing this movie, do you really think he'd let Miley Cyrus play any part in his movie?.

I'm sorry. You're still wrong.

You can write off the 90s as an industry-destroying attempt to cater to "mature" tastes in a one-dimensional way, but that assumption is as one-dimensional as the materials that seem to support it. The fact of the matter is that a lot of good stuff came out of the late eighties and early nineties. Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman emerged front and center, as did Frank Miller and Paul Dini (the latter, without whom, there would probably be little interest in Batman today- no thanks at all to the likes of Schumacher, Adam West, and co.)

Whereas if you turn back the clock and look at comics from the "Silver Age" and before, you're in for a shock. What springs out the most to the modern reader is not the bright colors and the "gee-whiz, it's fun being a superhero" attitude, but how ham-fistedly awful most of the writing is. How much of the dialogue is little more than bald-faced, soap-opera style exposition and reminding readers of what came before. How many of the characters consist of little more than a couple of reliable quirks and foibles, the kind of shallowness that made "comic-book" a derrogatory description of writing and plotting.

It's this era, and this kind of writing, within which Robin is most at home. The Bat-pun. The "Oh, jinkies, what hijinx have I gotten myself into now" plotline. The embarrassingly obvious ploy to rope in the 8-12 market.

If you have any honesty, you have to recognize that an awful lot of what Robin has been involved in has been crap. And where it wasn't crap, it was still utterly inconsistent with the tone of Nolan's Batman movies.

Could Robin be done well, written well? Yes, I'd venture it could. Despite my scorn, I recognize that there have been good, enjoyable, and yes, lighter stories featuring the Boy Wonder. (Can you imagine those two words passing Christian Bale's lips, by the way?) But writing a good Robin, a believable Robin, a tone- and thematically-consistent Robin into Nolan's movies would be incredibly difficult, and far easier to make into a movie-wrecking disaster than a credible addition.

And more to the point, you haven't remotely convinced me that such a risk is worthwhile, let alone necessary.

Arguably, if The Dark Knight had a single overriding theme, it was not "The bad guys win, darkness darkness angst angst." It was "some things are more important than any one of us." That's definitely a theme that can be expanded on- Batman continuing to work on finding his place in a city where the attitude and morale of the common citizen are as powerful and dangerous as the schemes and machinations of "supervillains". That some techniques, some ideas, are so dangerous that making them accepted practice brings in a greater evil than the one you're trying to fight.

Where in this theme does putting a teenager up against brutal men armed with firearms fit in, pray tell?

Nolan's Batman is a more realistic figure. (I mean, suspension-of-disbelief wise; I'm well aware of the likelihood of a Batman-like figure's success in a world of electronic surveillance and the like, thank you, let's not go there.) His Ra's al Ghul is not an immortal eco-terrorist; his Joker doesn't mention a pit of chemicals. If his movements aren't fluid, it's because, yes, he's wearing armor and a variety of gadgets taking into consideration what he may face (and he still gets thrown for a loop on occasion, as by the Scarecrow's halucinogen in the first movie.) If I can conceive of a reason for what he brings with him, where is his reason for bringing a vulnerable young man, however talented, into battle? Let alone in an attention-drawing costume? Bait?

"Darkness is dead", you tell us. I don't see the evidence. Why wouldn't the $544 million domestic-grossing The Dark Knight want to borrow some mojo from the $46 million domestic-grossing Kick-Ass? Hmm, let me think. There ought to be room for both more lighthearted super-heroes like Iron Man and darker ones like Batman on the screen, and I think any attempt to turn one into the other (remember The Flash's TV series?) is a very shallow interpretation of the situation, and a serious mistake.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to release some hounds.

one problem with Robin is having to dilute the story by setting the character up and then making him into Robin, I think this problem might be to have Robin become Robin by himself and then have Batman take him in for one reason or another.

I actually like Robin. In fact, I am a huge fan of Nightwing, the grown up Robin, as well as the Tim Drake version. But, in the movies,

STOP LOOKING AT ADAM WEST AS THE "REAL" BATMAN!!!!!

FUCK'S SAKE!!

Sorry about that, but I am driven insane by moron's who suggest that Batman should have a "camp" feel, just because of a television show that was designed to make Batman look bad.

Anyways, Robin is great in the comics. But in the Nolan Batman movies he would be out of place, and completely ruin what has been an excellent series of movies so far.

When I saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I was thrilled. They weren't perfect, but they were the closest thing we had ever seen. They weren't the horrible goth/camp movies of the 90's and they weren't the intentionally stupid Adam West version. They were dark and full of character, as Batman should be.

Here's the thing, this whole "dark" version of Batman, isn't new. I know, I know, wierd huh? But, Batman was supposed to be dark from the very begining. This isn't my opinion, it's a fact, look it up. But, basically, for it's time, the original Batman comics were "dark", and this return to that feel is about going back to Batman's roots, not creating something new.

Robin is a lighter side to Batman, and theoretically he could be done without completely screwing up this wonderful set of movies. But, and we're talking J-Lo sized butt here, it would be so incredibly difficult to force a Robin into these movies, that we have to ask, is it worth it? Is it worth risking a great movie series, just so we can see Robin?

As much as I love Robin in the comics, putting him in the movies has several down-sides, let's go over them.

1. Robin as a kid: This has some potential, but only if you keep the movies dark. If you do that, parents will lose their minds over a violent, dark, movie in which a kid kicks ass. See, everytime a kid is violent in a movie, they have to make the movie "camp" or at the very least, "corny", to keep the parents placated. Furthermore, you would have to add a child actor, and most child actor's can't pull off the depth required to play a dark Robin. 95% chance of ruining Nolan Batman movie.

2. Robin as a teen or young adult: This has the greatest potential. But, the question is, why put him in the movie? In the Nolan movies, Batman is young, and part of the appeal is watching Batman learn and grow under the guide of Alfred. If you suddenly turn Batman into the adult, and give us Robin as the young person needing a guiding hand, then what happens to Alfred? Micheal Caine is the best Alfred we have ever seen, and it's not just because he's a great actor, it's because Alfred actually has something to do in the movie. Think, in all of the other incarnations of Alfred in film, what was he doing? Nothing. In Nolan's movie Alfred plays a greater role than ever before, as he actually has a purpose. The alternative is putting Micheal Caine on the sidelines, and anyone who knows anything about movies, knows that benching Micheal Caine is always a bad idea. 90% chance of ruining Nolan Batman movie.

Also, it should be noted that having the protaginist need supervision from an older, wiser, character is classic good storyline material. Luke Skywalker wouldn't have been nearly as appealing if he had to train someone, and Obi-Wan/Yoda were left cheering from the sidelines.

3. Robin as Nightwing: It's not Robin then is it? Nightwing works in the comics because of the history, training, and relationship with Batman. In order to force this character, you have to either ignore that backstory, or speed through it. Either way, it sucks. Again, why put this character in the movie? If you put Nightwing in as a fully developed character, then you essentially have two "Batmen" running around, without any good reason. If you don't have him fully developed, then you have to speed through the reason why he is in the movie ( and God knows what that could be) which makes the movie rushed, and damages the character development for all the rest of the cast. Think, what is one of the great comlaints about Iron Man 2? It's that the development of War Machine is rushed, and underdone. 97% chance of ruining Nolan Batman movie.

Ultimately, the addition of Robin would need to be gradual and dark, something which isn't possible in potentially the only remaining Nolan Batman film.

As much as it pains me to say it, I would rather have them sacrifice Robin, then risk ruining Batman.

Sovvolf:

MovieBob:
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. )

Also she's the Daughter of Carmine "The Roman" Falcone... which is pretty interesting and I think they could use that to some extent in the new movie... They won't, but they could. I would like to see Catwoman portrayed a little more accurately in the movies, in ever movie that has featured her (with the exception of the really old camp versions)she as this murder/revenge thing going on... what happened to the thrill seeking hooker story arc?.

Speaking of villains... I'm not sure who they could really use for the new movie. Most have been checked off because their too over the top for the series, Riddeler could be used but he's pretty much just another Joker. Raziel could possibly make it as a villain, an over the top Batman imitator who starts out well but goes too far, then wont step down from the mantle. Could lead to a few decent fight scenes at the climax of the film... the problem with that idea is that I don't think it's a good way to finish off a movie series.

the storyline they've been paralleling so far with the movies is the Year One/Long Halloween/Dark Victory, which basically form an unofficial origin trinity in the comics, and stand as the current cannon. the main thrust, which Nolan has been adhering to, is the introduction of Batman into the corruption of Gotham City resulting in a power-shift from the old guard of the Mob to the "Freaks" of the Batman rogue's gallery. at this point, the Mob is pretty much done, and between whatever Arkham inmates are still running loose from BB and Joker's shenanigans in TDK, Nolan's in a position to open the floodgates and use multiple lower-tier villains rather than one show-stopper. for a primary, you've got Black Mask(an excellent transition from mob to freak), with guys like Mad Hatter, Penguin(arms dealer/information broker), or the Riddler as secondaries. and both Scarecrow and Joker are available to re-use.

and whilst i would prefer Robin, Catwoman/Selina would be a functional alternative to Robin in terms of bringing Bruce back from the brink without fundamentally altering the current tone.

*goes back to watch Batman Beyond*

The best animated Batman series ever, imo.

Thanks for reminding me of it.

stickmangrit:

the storyline they've been paralleling so far with the movies is the Year One/Long Halloween/Dark Victory, which basically form an unofficial origin trinity in the comics, and stand as the current cannon. the main thrust, which Nolan has been adhering to, is the introduction of Batman into the corruption of Gotham City resulting in a power-shift from the old guard of the Mob to the "Freaks" of the Batman rogue's gallery. at this point, the Mob is pretty much done, and between whatever Arkham inmates are still running loose from BB and Joker's shenanigans in TDK, Nolan's in a position to open the floodgates and use multiple lower-tier villains rather than one show-stopper. for a primary, you've got Black Mask(an excellent transition from mob to freak), with guys like Mad Hatter, Penguin(arms dealer/information broker), or the Riddler as secondaries. and both Scarecrow and Joker are available to re-use.

and whilst i would prefer Robin, Catwoman/Selina would be a functional alternative to Robin in terms of bringing Bruce back from the brink without fundamentally altering the current tone.

I know which storyline they are paralleling, I even mentioned this in an early post on this thread. Which is my reason as to why I think Robin would probably fit in with the trilogy. Penguin and Mad Hatter I doubt would be done. I think Nolan as already mentioned not doing Penguin and I don't think Mad Hatter would be able to hold up a movie as the main antagonist, maybe as a sub-antagonist... though I think Mad Hatter would feel a little off in this Batman trilogy. Black Mask is a good one, though I feel (because the next movie is also the last movie in Nolans take) that it would be too late to add him into the series, I could be wrong. Joker is out of the picture without Heath being alive, maybe a cameo using trick photography but not as a full villain. As for the Riddiller, well I think he'd be too close to what the last Joker was only much tamer.

I'll I have to say is robin the boy wonder series by Frank Miller and Jim Lee. If that doesn't fit into the Nolan universe I don't know what does.

Ok, this is just plain weird:

Since you don't get much darker than that without sending Batman off to fight that guy from The Human Centipede, is it fair to wonder if TDK is the peak for grim, pitch-dark superheroes?

In the morning I read an article about zero star reviews by Roger Ebert, "The Human Centipede" being in the list but not for being a bad film. All I thought was "never heard of that film but an odd reason to have zero stars".

Moving on, but then I later watch a missed episode of Charlie Brooker's UK quiz show "You've Been Watching" where he plays the trailer then asks some comical questions. I thought the trailer was weird and having read more on Wikipedia it's just messed up and I don't normally care about film content.

AND NOW it's in this article? That's three references to a little known film in a half a day of just hearing about it for the first time...

...I think the universe is telling me to watch it... I don't want to though...

HAHA good times.

My issue with Robin, at his core, is that was brought in solely to give the children a character to identify with in the comic books. He serves no purpose, initially other than that. Eventually he turned into something more interesting, but that was also after there were rampant accusations that Batman and Robin was some kind of gay pedophile book-- which is WHY Batgirl and Batwoman showed up in the first place. Give them interests to divert the attention away.

Tim Drake, as it's been said, is probably the best Robin. And his suit before he became Red Robin would be a good one to use in a possible future movie.

No, no, no... Batman and Hit Girl, that's a clever movie. Batman and Robin, that's just wrong.

I mean, there is already one instance of unexplained support for a weird-ass compulsion to be a superhero in Alfred's nonchalant acceptance of Bruce Wayne's completely insane plan to become a costumed vigilante. That works because Alfred is not much of a character in the movies, but Batman accepting a child sidekick, then introducing this fact to Alfred and then Alfred going "sure, go ahead, go for it" is just nuts.

Not to mention that, like Bob says, that would lead to Batman, you know, speaking in the movie. We all know that doesn't work well.

Robin can only go in two directions. If it's poorly done, it will feel incongruous and poorly made, if it's done properly it can be very interesting and completely displace Batman from the movie again, like Hit Girl does with kick-ass. I'm not sure I want either of those to happen, to be honest.

So yes, Batman 3 must be about Batman rising from his position as an outlaw and finding a middle ground compromise as a permanent, accepted superhero rather than retiring or seeking martyrdom, as he does in TDK, but I'm not sure why Bob thinks Robin fits into that in any way.

Never been a fan of robin. I get that movie bob is saying its like holmes without watson ,but watson was useful you see. Robin was always just a filler character in my view who served no real purpose.

Now harley quinn on the other hand....Deserves to be in the next movie!

Ok, beyond the fact that stirring up conversation seems to be Bob's entire goal let's see a couple of the arguments made.

1. Robin wouldn't work in the Nolanverse: Why not? I would be willing to admit that not the campiest Robin, nor the 10 year old version (Though there are shaolin fighters who start younger than that). But someone or something to bring Bats out of the brink could be a good thing. Nolan could easily keep the dark version of batman, and introduce a very tragic Robin without sacrificing seriousness or much realism; supposing that he played Batman as the father figure, while Bruce was sort of incapable of filling the hole in Robin's life with money, or whatever.

2. Batman is always dark and gritty: No, no he's not. This is one thing I agree wholeheartedly with Grant Morrison on, Batman has gone through many phases in his life, and they're all relevant. The dark Batman from the beginning and 80s are just as much apart of the Batman mythos as the Adam West batman style from the TV show, and comics from the 50s and 60s. Even in the comics there has always been a separation. Batman's main title has usually been about any Batman story someone wants to tell; he can team up with superman, go into space, or hang out in Gotham. Detective comics has been the gritty noir crime stories traditionally.

3. Batman is a loner: Since we're talking about the Nolan movies I'll stick to that version. Bruce/Batman was constantly trying to let people into his life. Especially initially he's much more trusting than he usually is in the comics. He uses Lucius Fox, Rachel, and Alfred. And in Regards to Rachel he works on letting her into both aspects of his life, and he suffers for it. It might be an interesting dynamic to have Robin involved with Batman only, and then eventually he's let into Bruce's life once he's able to defend himself or something like that.

For the record, I do like this thread, and there are plenty of reasons to keep Robin out of the movies, not the least of which: It's quite easy to screw up. But overall I am very for Robin being in the movies. If you want to see camp taken seriously then read the last year of the Batman and Robin title. Sure it's not Bruce under the Cowl, but it's still Batman.

Batman doesn't need to be cheerful and happy. We have enough "light-hearted" superhero movies. Despite what hollywood things, not every movie needs to be a carbon-copy of another. Batman is different, it's darker, and when all is said and done it's well on its way to being the best superhero trilogy of all time. That's the way it should be.

Well, now that I know yet another spoiler for TDK (love interest death, and perhaps the clean-*-cut "bad guy wins" thing), I'm still not sure what I thought for Nolan Batman 3 before. All I had in mind was the suggestion of The Riddler being the bad guy, but otherwise... Gah, can't remember.

If anything, I just hope they don't get campy.

Robin can work very well in the next Nolan Batman film

they just have to do it right...which they are perfectly capable of

and by that, I mean not cast Shia LaBeouf.

Robin is like Batman Cancer, hell people reading the comics even voted to kill him off, I'm just glad that both Nolan an Bale have both said that if Robin is added into the cast they quite.

Well MovieBob you convinced me. I used to agree with the Robin haters, but looking at it from this point of view does make me realize that Robin is what this series needs.

Cody211282:
Robin is like Batman Cancer, hell people reading the comics even voted to kill him off, I'm just glad that both Nolan an Bale have both said that if Robin is added into the cast they quite.

Voted to kill off Jason Todd who was a douche anyway (and the vote was close). You can't base robin on that character because Jason can straight suck it. If they did a good Dick Grayson it could work. Like I said in boy wonder he's awesome, end of the run he beats GL almost to death.

???

My friends and I were just talking about the Human Centipede the other day!
Is this movie new, or what? It's Indy.
And pretty gross-looking.

Edit: Oh, and: "Part of what made The Dark Knight such a great work was that it was willing to go all the way..."

^ That's what she said.

I'm not universally opposed to the concept of Robin appearing in the new Batman franchise. I've just never, ever, seen the teenage sidekick done well in a live action context. My first exposures to Robin, as a character, were the old Adam West Batman and then Chris O'Donnell.

If they have a way to do it right, introducing someone who can actually pass as a teenager, who is characterized as something other than a giant baby, then I'd love to see it. I'm just not convinced that Hollywood can wrap their heads around what's required.

As your review of Robin Hood showed, Hollywood has a magical ability to miss the point entirely.

Well, MovieBob, I want to start out saying that I agree with you- I would like to see Robin in the next Batman movie. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was one of the people who defended you in your The Losers review. However, I just want to clarify that Batman seems to be at his best when he is dark. Not overly dark, mind you, but dark in a film noir sort of way- philosophical and angsty, but not Leifeldian. I had a chance to speak with Michael Uslan, the man who got the ball rolling on the Batman film franchise, starting with Tim Burton's movie, recently, and one of his goals with that was to bring Batman back to his roots, which I believe he did well. The Tim Burton movie took Batman to too dark a place, in my belief, you know, what with the killing, but it did revive the character by respecting his origin. I don't necessarily think Batman is following a trend by being "grim and gritty." That's just who he is.

MovieBob:
Three Reasons for Robin

Why MovieBob wants the Dynamic Duo reunited.

Read Full Article

Like all things, it would depend entirely on how they portray Robin. Christopher Nolan doesn't like the character and the only incarnation of Robin that I actually liked was from Batman TAS. Everything else just came off like an appendix - it may have served some point being there in the distant past, but it's atrophied to the extent that it serves no useful purpose. The 60s TV show, followed by the disastrous Batman Forever and even more disastrous Batman and Robin have ruined the image of what Robin is supposed to be and if we tried to force him into the new films (especially given Nolan's style of directing) it would totally ruin the franchise again.
That said, I can see Robin working if they hammered out his backstory to be solid enough and didn't make a whiny, emo-bitch who complains every five seconds. He could potentially be an aspect of redemption for the Dark Knight. Too much time alone makes you loose your humanity and Robin could be the thing that keeps him from completely loosing himself now that Rachel is gone.

I am...conflicted. I like the idea of Robin, but rarely the practice. It always falls short, when put into practice, to get Batman to appropriately act in regards to the transition to the father figure that he grows into the mentality of with Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon. And getting someone like Bale to fill that role...I'm just not seeing it work well.

lol bat iphone

I find myself in an uncomfortable position on this one. On one hand, I love Robin. The Robin comics (while they were still being drawn by W&W) were the only ones I read as a child. Tim Drake playing Robin in those days was really good at fusing the lives of a teenager and of a vigilante.

On the other hand, I don't think that the Batman movies are quite ready yet. It's not because of tone, because the Robin comics proved that Robin doesn't have to be light and quirky. No the reason I don't think Robin should be introduced at this point is Batman himself. The character of Bruce Wayne has not yet reached the point were he's ready for a sidekick. Bruce is still too caught up in his own anguish, his own rage. I know that's the same reason Movie Bob said Robin should be there, but stop for a minute and ask yourself if you can picture Bale's Batman accepting a sidekick right now. I can't. I can literally think of no situation in which Batman would ever agree to take Robin on. Maybe after the next movie the character will have matured enough, but at this point, no way.

RestamSalucard:

image

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

Don't get my hopes up like that. I had to go in IMDB to see if that was real, and if it is they have no info on it. I don't know if he could do a good Riddler, but I would have to watch it anyways.

OT: I like the concept of Robin, but I would have to wait and see how it is implemented. It has potential, but the writer/director would have to be exceptional to work the origin in without it being too light. Then again, I thought they did a great job wit a "darker" Joker, and it would be too easy to make him to light as well. Here's hoping.

Hey I thought you comments on Robin were good the first time.

Also their hasn't been a movie done yet that actually focuses on Robin's origin in more than just a flashback.

RestamSalucard:

image

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

Better yet, the clock king. He hasn't been in anything yet.

MovieBob:
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 ;)

I don't see why not. I mean, nobody really expected them to go the places they did in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, did they?

And really, it would fit the place the story is in right now. Batman is a fugitive, (not to mention one with a convenient recently dead love interest) so a relationship with someone on the "other side," so to speak, makes perfect sense at this point in the story. The fact that they're both on the wrong side of the law makes the question of whether him putting on a mask to fight crime is really any different from her putting on a mask to commit them all that much more poignant, especially when there's no obvious, "yeah, the difference is I'm not a mass-freaking-murderer," answer like there was with the Joker.

I agree with your (Heh. I almost said "with Bob's" before I noticed who I was actually replying to) assessment that Robin is a necessary part of Batman's development as a character, and that he could very easily fit into the Nolanverse if done right, but this isn't the right point in the story to introduce him. Even if you ignore the fact that while being actively pursued by the police (as opposed to tacitly approved of and supported under the table) is a terrible time to try to adopt, I think that in order to be done properly, Robin would need his OWN story. Something about Batman learning what it means to be a father and a teacher, and all that, and discovering a bit about himself in the process. Trying to shoehorn his introduction into some other story would leave us with the same kind of mess we saw in the 90's movies.

If Nolan ever made a fourth Batman movie, however, I could easily see that one focusing on Robin. By that time the Nolanverse Batman would be old and wise enough to make taking on a student seem more natural, anyway.

Also, just because that's the way it's always done, doesn't mean the next Batman movie would NEED to be bigger and more spectacular. A more human story that just happens to star Batman would work just as well as yet another story about Batman foiling a plot to blow a lot of shit up. You'd draw in the people who like a good romance with a lot of conflict and intrigue, and the bat/cat suits would be enough to convince the people who wouldn't normally give that kind of movie a chance a reason to go see it anyway.

Besides, a scene in which Batman and Catwoman have to work together to steal some MacGuffin that Batman needs to Save The Day and Catwoman just wants for herself from some highly secure installation could be pretty darn spectacular in its own right, and easily has the potential to blow every other heist movie ever made out of the water if done right.

With a focus on Catwoman, they could even get away with not having one big headline villain to beat. I'd love to see superhero movies move away from the "new sequel=new villain" model that those same terrible 90's Batman movies we're complaining about now popularized. Iron Man is a good example of how this might work, and if he can do it Batman certainly can too.

Bob: THANK YOU!

Everyone still has this silly image of Robin from the 60s and the Adam West show, so of course any time someone brings up the possibility of Robin they all go "No, that would be awful." But maybe if Robin shows up in some mainstream stuff, everyone will finally just get over this ridiculous vendetta against one of my favorite characters of all time. Yeah, sure, so the short pants might have to go, and I wouldn't be completely against making the costume a bit more... restrained to match the tone of the rest of the movie, but... come on. We need Robin!

And if they don't think audiences will go for the eternally sunny son of circus acrobats, then why not use Jason Todd's backstory? Or even Stephanie Brown's (her backstory, if not herself)? Both of those are sufficiently dark for the tone of the Nolan films.

I had my mind made up that there was absolutely no reason for Robin to be introduced in this Batman universe. It's not only because I hate him as a character and despise it every time he pops up in a Batman storyline, but because I couldn't think of any way that he could be incorporated into this series of movies in a way that makes sense and fits appropriately with the tone and Batman's current character.

And then I read this article... and my opinion did not change at all. Sorry.

Robin just "belongs there". Why? Because he's been part of Batman for a long time. So what? Does that mean he has to be shoehorned into every series, just for the sake of progressing the same old storyline?

Dark is dead? Because a few lighthearted superhero movies came out, Batman is supposed to jump on the bandwagon? By using "dark is dead" as a justification for having Robin, you're admitting that Robin wouldn't work in the dark, gritty tone created by Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. It's not like the next film in the series can just throw all that grittiness out the window and tack in the Boy Wonder because the "pendulum" is swinging in the opposite direction this time around. There's some degree of consistency that should be kept between films, and I'd hate for them to go against the tone of the first two films for the sake of appeasing the people who liked Iron Man. Why can't "fun" and "serious" superhero movies exist simultaneously?

And I agree that the next Batman film probably can't be darker than The Dark Knight, but as TDK is the middle film in what is about to be a trilogy, that's to be expected; the middle film always ends on the most downtrodden note. That doesn't mean that the next movie should try to be darker, as if grittiness defines the film's quality. It can still be dark, even if not as dark as TDK, while still telling the story of Batman coming from the brink and finding his place or what have you. And I believe they can do this without having to call in the inherently campy character we know as Robin.

Besides, if this cultural pendulum you speak of really exists and has been moving from gritty to quirky and colorful, a successful Batman movie in the series' dark tone is all it will take to kick it right back in the opposite direction.

EDIT: And yes, even if Robin is darkened up, I still can't see any way to incorporate him into the movie without it being ridiculous or forced. Bruce Wayne as he was at the end of the Dark Knight would never accept a teenage boy to start fighting crime with him. The Batman I know - the solitary loner who is more than willing enough to take punishment to keep people out of harm - just couldn't reasonably endanger the life of some underage kid to help him fight crime. That's part of why I hate the idea of Robin so much.

 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
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here