Okay, so Robin is Bruce’s son that he fathered while on his drunken, nihilistic journey as a young man. Kid is raised on the streets, a mean, tough, sociopathic little son of a bitch. Mom shows up at stately Wayne Manor (or wherever he’s living), dumps the kid, tells Bruce it’s time he played dad, and by the way, you owe me a shitload of back child support.
Secret paternity tests show he really is the kid’s father, mom gets paid off, and Bruce spends a movie trying to focus the psychotic little alley rat’s rage on Gotham’s criminal element while teching him how to pass himself off as normal when not in costume.
It seems pretty clear that he was giving out conflicting stories, since he’s also said that he’d be willing to come back and was non-committal on Two Face’s status. Seems a little strange to me that they would make a big deal in the film about the importance of one side of the coin showing up (it being a two headed coin distinguishable solely by one side being shiney) and then focus heavily on it coming up shiney side right when it appears that Two Face is dead. I suppose that one could argue this was symbolic of him being released from his condition and that his reputation as a hero would be preserved, but that seems a bit deep for the film, IMHO.
In the comics, Robin was no older than twelve when he first met Batman. I’m still waiting for a film adaptation to get that right. Robin is not the Teen Wonder. Robin is not the Young-Adult Wonder. Robin is the Boy Wonder.
Even ignoring the symbolism of the final coin flip, there was no grave and no declaration of death during Gordon’s final speech honoring Harvey Dent. This is Comic Book Rules 101. No body = no death.
While Dent might be dead, there’s no way to tell with the information we were given in the film.
EDIT:
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting. Robin the Boy Wonder is a ridiculous thing to add to any Batman movie. Especially in the Nolanverse version of Gotham.
Robin grew into the Teen Wonder within accepted Batman continuity. It’s perfectly valid to portray him as such in movies or cartoons. Motion picture portrayals do skew toward an older Robin just because it is so patently absurd to have a 12 year old boy repeatedly engaging in outnumbered hand-to-hand combat with adults and winning. It’s far easier to pull off in a still panel.
In fact, I think if one checked into it, one might find that Dick Grayson was The Teen Wonder for longer than he was The Boy Wonder. Robin came along in 1940, IIRC. He was portrayed as a teen old enough to be dating as early as the 50’s, when he and Batman had parallel relationships going with the original Batgirl and Batwoman. I know for sure he was The Teen Wonder by the 60’s and was portrayed as a young, independent adult Robin until he buggered off to Bludhaven to be Nightwing. That was after I quit reading on any kind of regular basis, though. When was that? Late 80’s? 90’s?
If there must be a Robin, I think I could see the character being made moderately acceptable within the Nolan franchise if he really is a kid, not a teenager, and if they take the route of making him a rage-prone, borderline delinquent (or even outright delinquent) who Bruce Wayne identifies with (especially if the kid’s anger stems from having had his parents murdered, just like Wayne), and finds a way to channel the kid’s rage and talents against the bad guys.
Of course, having the kid go physically toe to toe against adult mobsters and such would still be too much to be credible, but I suppose the character could still be made computer and tech savvy. That way he could still help Batman but in a more remote way. I could see this relationship providing some opportunities for Nolan to explore the moral ambiguities which are the trademark of his Batman vision (it should be made very questionable whether Wayne bringing the kid into his Batman life is a healthy or “right” thing to do), but the costume is still a huge problem. So is the name “Robin.” So is the name “Dick Grayson,” for that matter. For God’s sake, you can’t let a 12 year old boy be named Dick in this day and age. That’s how you get another Joker.
In his earliest comic appearances, Robin used a sling as something of an equalizer. If there must be a Robin and he must be a kid for the movies, one way to handle it would be to have Batman plan Robin’s direct contact with the bad guys be basically nil. The, through some dramatic device or another_perhaps he has to save Alfred_Robin does end up going mano a mano against some crazoid. Taking a page from early comic book Robin, he uses weapons, far more potent ones than a sling, from the incredibly well-stocked Wayne Enterprises arsenal to defeat the crazoid and save Alfred. This way, you get a young Robin who believably beats one adult and is the hero.
From what I’m aware of, many 12 year olds have fought in wars and been perfectly helpful. Sure they’ll spend most of their time behind the lines, but there’s nothing wrong with that. Alfred isn’t less of a character because he isn’t on the front line with Bats.
Now obviously Robin would need to be more in the thick of things than Alfred, but I don’t think it would be difficult to create a strategically realistic use of a 12 year old boy that’s helpful, near danger, and plausible. Like I said, 12 year olds have successfully been used in wars in various positions. Just going through a history book would likely be able to provide a screenwriter with ideas.
And sometimes they are on the front lines, like the 12-year-old midshipman in Master and Commander. Which illustrates the problem: Sometimes they get maimed or killed. Putting a 12-year-old in the front lines would be inconceivable today in any military force but a guerrilla army, where it’s all too common. (Of course, the Iranians did use them as minesweepers when they fought Iraq, but that just illustrates the point.) Which makes the idea kind of a hard sell in a modern superhero comic-book adaptation even though it was perfectly acceptable in 1940.
An intelligent movie producer would heed the wisdom that, “There ain’t no such thing as bad publicity.”
People might cry and shout over the portrayal and yell about how evil Batman is, but they’ll come and watch the movie before they do the yelling and so will their friends–so long as it’s a good and entertaining movie, of course. Make a good movie with a hint of scandal and you have a license to print money.
I’d sorely like to find the man who coined this moronic phrase, and kick him in the balls until his ears bleed.
First, I see no reason to believe it would be in character for Bale’s Bruce Wayne to recklessly endanger a child. Making a villain act out of character by kicking the dog can ruin a movie, what makes you think that doing it to the protagonist is going to be more successful? Second, why would a ninja drag a smaller, weaker, less stealthy, less intimidating apprentice into battle? Why would I waste my money to watch their movie if they can’t be arsed to put five seconds thought into it?
Okay… I fear that it’s become a set phrase because it generally works out to be true in the entertainment industry. If you can put “Banned in Australia!” on your product, it’s going to sell 10% more units. It’s just one of those things.
If you know producers, they’ll rub their palms and grin on hearing about scandal. Maybe they’re wrong, but I would think that if that was so, they would have figured it out by now.
a) Not every Batman sojourn needs to be fighting a single, mighty opponent. Most of the time, Batman fights average street crime and acts as a detective investigating crime scenes. There’s nothing wrong with having the movie focus on the teacher-apprentice relationship instead of Batman versus Psychopath X. The Professional (Leon) was a very good movie and while provocative didn’t make Leon necessarily a bad person, but it did show a side of his personality that was interesting and that you wouldn’t have seen if you only saw a movie about his assassination days.
b) Batman doesn’t have to use the same battle tactics as he uses when he fights alone. If he has Robin to aid him out in the field, he can have Robin act as a sniper (with tranquilizers); Robin can sneak around setting up traps; he can hang back and run off to fetch supplies from the Batmobile while Batman holds the badguys off; etc. Batman in particular is meant to win fights by preparedness not by being the baddest mofo on the planet. Having a greater variety of tools to work with is always going to be a plus. If that other tool is just as much a badass ninja, then he’ll have another ninja to back him up, but he’s not going to toss away non-ninja aid that can be used. He’ll accept it and its strengths and weaknesses and plan based on that.
They should just call it The Goddamn Batman and have Dick Grayson chained up in the Batcave the whole time. No crimefighting or anything, he just sits there eating rats.
Quite right; and as Jules Feiffer pointed out in his book The Great Comic Book Heroes it was a failure. Young boys read the comics because they fantasized about growing up and being Batman, not because they fantasized about going out adventuring with Batman. Feiffer was exactly dead-on; further, this applies to all sidekicks, not just Robin. Did you ever read Superman because you identified with Jimmy Olsen? Did you ever once say to yourself “Gee whilikers wouldn’t it be swell to be Bucky!”? Did you ever pick up a Hulk comic because you were worried about Snapper Carr?
The sidekicks who were superpowered in their own right, Kid Flash, Aqualad, Toro, et. al. were a tad different. The young male reader could fantasize about being a superpowered kid while reading their exploits, I guess.
Overall, I believe if you polled comic book readers you would find an overwhelming majority of them don’t care much for sidekicks.