Three Reasons for Robin

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

 

[RestamSalucard]

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!

 

[Kmadden2004]

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.

 

[Tarakos]

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.

 

[Bonecrusher]

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

 

[gamefreakbsp]

Sounds good to me. Bring on the birdie!

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

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"...

 

[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.

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

 

[Sgt Doom]

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.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

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.

 

[FFKonoko]

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.

 

[naughtydoggus]

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

 

[ANImaniac89]

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

 

[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.

 

[Sovvolf]

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.

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?.

 

[Callate]

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.

 

[Vault Citizen]

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.

 

[Semitendon]

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.

 

[stickmangrit]

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.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

*goes back to watch Batman Beyond*

The best animated Batman series ever, imo.

Thanks for reminding me of it.