And Brett Ratner will direct!
Let us hope that Batman has his Bat Shark Repellant with him. Looks like he’s going to need it…
People just don’t really know anything about the character and assume that the addition of Robin necessarily turns the Batman franchise into a camp-fest like the Adam West series or Batman Forever.
But that isn’t at all the case. Robin is an awesome character who would fit in to the Nolanverse just as well as any of Batman’s more colorful villains (like, say, the Joker) if adapted well.
The Robin hate is nonsenseical.
It’s true that Robin doesn’t have to be done Burt Ward-style.
The character is handled quite well in the Teen Titans animated series, for example. He’s tough (really tough), he’s smart, and he’s believably Batman’s protege while also being a separate and distinct character.
I disagree. Making Robin a teen is, I think, what ruined the Robin character for all live action versions of Batman to date.
As a child there’s a whole lot more emotion. You care more about a 12 year old whose been orphaned than an 18 year old. You feel that there’s more effort on Batman’s part to do something for this kid, if it’s a small kid. There’s more conflict in Batman teaching the kid to go out and place himself in harms way when he’s a small kid.
Presented realistically, like Nolan would, and with a small boy instead of a teen, the Robin story would actually be great. It might even inspire controversy because it’s one of the great examples of Batman’s obsession with crime fighting that he’ll even teach a little kid and put him out there to be shot at and whapped around by psychopaths.
The thing about a Robin who is a kid is that in any confrontation with said psychopaths, he’d just get beat down, shot, or otherwise killed immediately. Yes, I know it’s a comic book world. Nolan has tried, though, to have a more “realistic” take on Batman. It’d destroy my willing suspension of disbelief, if not yours, to see this little kid fighting adult criminals toe-to-toe and winning.
Until the studio fires him after the first test screening and brings in Joel Schumacher.
Yes. (Or at least “can actually act better than Elmo, Levar Burton, the Bear in the Big Blue House, and the person who plays his own mother.”)
Except a 12 year old Robin stretches belief in the comics and cartoons. In the Nolanverse movies, it would just be painfully stupid.
There’s no way you can do Robin in a serious live action without having him be at least 17.
I’m still holding out for Gary Coleman as Robin. That would be freakin’ awesome!
“Whatchu talkin’ 'bout, Batman?” A better movie could not be made.
The Nolanverse isn’t any more realistic than the comics, really. Batman goes through a bunch of ninja training that makes no sense and which somehow keeps everyone around him from doing the obvious thing and shooting him in the mouth.
I mean, I think Robin should be older in the movie, too (around 17 would be good), but I don’t think that argument should be based on any kind of claim of realism in the Nolan movies.
As those of us in the UK know all too well, articles in The Sun (and especially those dealing with show business) are pure fiction and 100% guaranteed hogwash.
They should do Robin as in “The Dark Knight Returns” and have Robin be a young girl.
I vote that the list above is bogus. Not necessarily because of Eddie Murphy, or Catwoman, but because of Robin. Not only because they’ve both said it’d enver happen, but that it’s too many characters to introduce in a single picture.
I didn’t say Nolan’s version was realistic. I said it was “realistic.” Nothing we’ve seen in the two movies indicates that it would believably fit into that world to have a child engaging in combat against grown, violent adults and winning. Bruce, himself, was helpless when his parents were murdered. Gordon’s child was as helpless as any real child when taken hostage by The Joker.
They should do Robin the way John Fiorella envisioned, in a 13-part mini-series.
Robin is such an integral part of the Batman mythos, I think it would be a mistake to ignore him entirely. I like of having a younger Robin, but I think it need to be an emotional story arc, not an action one. The idea of having Batman send a kid up against psychopaths is, as many have pointed out, patently ridiculous. But you could ahve Robin without having “The Dynamic Duo.”
Robin should be Batman’s ward, not his partner in crimefighting. One option would be a young (12 or so) boy who is more broken than Bruce, and who Bruce feels obligated to care for. Maybe the son of someone Bruce himself kills? He tries to raise the boy normally but ends up training him as a crimefighter because it’s all Bruce really knows and all he has to offer. But we could never see Robin in action. It would strictly be about Bruce’s decision whether or not to set him on the path Bruce himself chose, not about the boy fighting anyone. He wouldn’t be Robin yet. Maybe never. Having Bruce have to make these decisions now, when he is on the run and ostensibly Gotham’s bad guy could be really powerful. Can he possibly do more good than harm to someone he cares for?
The other way would be to have a 15 or 16 year old gang member who is already committed to a life of violence - possibly a Joker in the making. Bruce is faced with the choice of letting nature take it’s course on the boy or teaching him to channel his violence into something hopefully useful. But has Bruce even been able to do that with himself or does violence inevitably lead to more violence? This would have more action possabilities (maybe Bruce has to help him extract revenge on someone with some semblance of “justice” instead of pure anger) but it also has a greater risk of falling into established patterns with the character. Could be worth it if done right, though.
Believe no entertainment news originating from anywhere in this sphere. Period. It’s all bullshit. Period. If the report of the story begins with that source information, dismiss it. Period.
Along that line of thought, if Robin was introduced I think Gordon’s son would be a good choice to fill the role. The character is already there, has seen Batman in action and is one of the only people who knows the truth behind how Dent died. He’d also probably be old enough to believably pull the part off by the time another installment comes around.
Dent isn’t dead. The coin landed “shiney side up,” which means in movie parlance he’s still breathing. The presumed theory about what happened to Dent (since its never explicitly said he’s dead in the film) is that they shuffled him off to Arkham Aslyum to keep his condition silenced up. Eckhardt has said he’s willing to come back for another film in the role (which would imply that he knows his character has been deliberately left in suspenseful limbo).