Discuss: Should Robin Show Up in Nolan's Batman Movies?
Filed under: Action, Fandom, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
Surfing the internets today, I came across a rant over at JoBlo on why the character Robin should stay real far away from Christopher Nolan's Batman films. Now, keep in mind I'm writing this as someone who has not seen The Dark Knight yet. In case you weren't aware, the film screened for press in Los Angeles over the weekend (including our own James Rocchi, who told me it was "awesome"), and since then I've been using every editor's trick in the book to steer clear of spoilers. It's rough, real rough, but I've been trying my best. So know that there won't be any Dark Knight spoilers in this post -- and understand that I'm coming at this from the vantage point of someone who does not know whether The Dark Knight opens the door for Robin to show up in a third flick.
That said, over at JoBlo, Sturdy makes the argument that Robin just isn't an interesting character, and that he's never "worked, whether it be on film, TV or in the comics." Of course, the whole homoerotic theme pops up, and how could it not when you have a young, lean, clean-cut gymnast who shacks up with an even prettier, wealthy industrialist who likes fast toys. Yeah. Kicking it up another notch, Sturdy goes so far as to say that "if you got together all of today's best writers and filmmakers and locked them in a room, they wouldn't be able to come up with a Robin storyline that worked."
Really? Is Robin a franchise killer or is Sturdy missing the importance of his character?
See, the one thing I always liked about Robin as a character, and not the version that popped up on TV or in Schumacher's films, was that he revealed another layer of Bruce Wayne. What happens when you take a guy who's lived his entire life as a loner, a rebel, and gave him a young, pesky teenager to look after. Essentially, what happens when this kickass superhero is forced to become a dad.
And I'll certainly agree with Sturdy in that they've never been able to make their relationship truly work on the big screen the way the comics intended it to. Introducing Robin into the mix immediately brought out a campier vibe, partly because writers felt like this should now automatically become a buddy comedy and not remain a dark, twisted Batman tale. Could Nolan find a way to keep his darker, more sinister (and definitely adult) tone and still introduce Robin in a third film? Would you, as an audience, want to see the character again on the big screen?
Could it work? And if so, how?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
7-01-2008 @ 12:22PM
Kevin said...
Not a chance. We already had the origin story of Batman and now the movies are free to dive right into actual plot. Lets not have another movie where we need to spend 20-30 minutes of it explaining who this character is, especially when that character is as useless and uninteresting as Robin. Batmans is a more then strong enough character to carry plenty of movies on his own.
Reply
7-13-2008 @ 3:49PM
Jeremy said...
Perhaps not robin in the stereotypical sense. Maybe me being younger and watching the newer age batman cartoons ruined my visionary mind. Perhaps Nightwing could be added in robins stead. Keeping the 'Dark' feel in the films but introducing robin as the already resentful independent character Nightwing is.
7-01-2008 @ 12:28PM
Brian said...
You could never call him"Robin" in the film--the name is just terrible. An interesting spin would be to make him a rogue cop who catches Batman's attention due to his questionable (i.e. violent) methods. Batman shows him a better way to thwart criminals, and the two assist each other on certain things without really "teaming up" or revealing Wayne's identity. That removes the word "sidekick" from the equation and lends a more adult feel to the film.
Reply
7-22-2008 @ 8:00PM
smackneedle said...
all you need is imagination....which none of you have except for Bry. no offense. I would make him a bad ass Juvenile delinquent.Gotta drop the costume and the name though. Kind of like a thief or a smuggler. A hired hand to assassinate Bruce at first. But you have to hide it from bale and the fans, so half through the movie your watching it and you think to yourself....is that suppose to be robin? Or you could just have Shilo Bluff play the part since hes doing such a good job in all his movies so far.
8-12-2008 @ 4:11AM
Juan said...
Like you're thinking. Robin's backstory is rather simple; he travels with a circus, his parents are murdered. Start him out as a street urchin/ vigilante except crime finds him, unlike Batman, then two meet up. Batman recruits him, Robin respects Batman and honors his training, and Batman gets Fox to make him a suit. Robin takes the suit, adds his family's cape to it, and maybe the mask or instead of a mask, some hightech goggles.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28253255@N08/2756354106/
7-01-2008 @ 12:28PM
Joseph said...
Robin is an essential part of the Batman mythos. I would be really interested in seeing how Nolan would handle adding him. But, it's still pretty early in his version on Batman's chronology to be adding him.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:27PM
Rob Stevens said...
The only comic book storyline where Robin "worked" was The Killing Joke, where The Joker kills Robin. And that only worked because of all of the history between Robin and Batman.
Unfortunately, there are multitudinous reasons why that can't work now, not the least of which is The Joker not being in the film series now. I don't think that storyline could work with another villian.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:40PM
Greg Holkan said...
Joker didn't kill Robin in "The Killing Joke" he shot Batgirl. Robin (the Jason Todd incarnation thereof) was shot in the storyline "A Death in the Family."
7-02-2008 @ 1:12PM
Patrick R said...
What Greg said, except he was actually killed in an explosion, not shot.
7-01-2008 @ 12:33PM
LiqwidZero said...
No.
Robin is just a messed up character who goes from an aid in vendetta to dead. From vendetta, again, to vengeance.
Robin's a crappy character.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:38PM
Greg Holkan said...
Dude. Seriously, Robin is about failure. I'm actually not dissing the character here. Batman acts as mentor/father figure to Robin, and continually fails at it. It's a chance for Batman/Bruce to redeem himself, to mend that part of him that's broken, and he never manages it. In the comics he is constantly alienating each new kid he takes in who becomes Robin. (We're up to at least #3, depending on how you count.)
The first Robin, the one folks think of when they think of the character, is Dick Grayson. What Batman does is take this kid in after Grayson sees his parents murdered. Bruce feels bad for Dick Grayson, and wants to give him the opportunity to try to right things the same way that he himself has. But it doesn't quite fit. Dick's parents weren't the same kind of people Bruce's parents were. What Grayson needed was a surrogate father, which is what Bruce needed. Rather than really provide that, Bruce instead provides the same broken solution that he's latched onto as Batman.
So, could Robin work? Yeah, he could, but it would take someone looking at it in the right way. Could it work in the Nolan films? Maybe, but a lot of things would come into play. How old would Robin be? Too young, and it's unlikely Jim Gordon (as characterized in the Nolan movies so far, I haven't seen Dark Knight) would go along. Too old, and it becomes pretty pointless for him to be there.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:41PM
LiqwidZero said...
Now, if Nightwing were in a Batman movie, it would be interesting to see.
9-23-2008 @ 5:36AM
Blade said...
my whole thing is this, a lot of people are making comments about not puting robin in a batman movie and things like that, every body has a right to their own opinion but are forgetting the main purpose of the character, forget the 90's version of how the character was introduced, weither it was corney or not the point is.........thats how producers wanted to do it back then, because that was the 90's thing. and just as they are reinventing or making batman darker now, they can do the same for robin, it just has to be done right...................but robin has a purpose otherwise, he would have never been created by the creator who created him. robin is the only character that batman can cope and relate to, he's the only character that understands and feels batmans heart, why? because they both can relate to why they do what they do, cause they both were delt a wrong card and due to tragedy/murder..........has taken away from them what was dear to their heart.........their family, their parents. having a batman movie without robin is like having a president without a vice president. of course the president can do the job by himself..........since really the vice president only really steps in for the president if the president is unavailable for some reason................we know we see and hear the president more then the vice president...........but guess what, when election day comes and the votes are final for the elected..................when that person wins, guess who wins with him............the person he chose to be the vice president..............seems to me the title "vice president" has some type of importance. i said all that to say this..............its the same issue with the robin question to the future batman films. robin has to show up sometime somwhere for a run in the movie wither it be in part 3,4,5 or how many they want to make..............but you cant leave him out and forget about him. batman is the man...............but he cant do everything by himself, just like a president cant and needs the aid and help of the vice president. even if he wanted to and even if he were able too, batman has to get tired eventually i mean hypathetically speaking, it would be good to use a little help once in a while and he's not going to be young forever. a sidekick wouldnt be bad......which i believe thats one of the reasons y a robin was created. so...............if they dont want to put him in now, then put him in part 4 or 5, but dont have the idea of not putting him at all..........especiallly if the dark knight franchise is based on books as long halloween and dark victory, in which robin has a major and important part in that saga to begin with.
and who said he has to be in every single one of the films, put him in just one then.................but it cant be a film made without him totally. and it has to show both as grayson and in costume you just need not to rush it like the mistakes they did before in 90's............so i agree with jeph loeb. let bruce and dick grow together learn of and how to deal with eachother, build relationship first..........then take care of crime together. like i and jeph said, it just has to be done right by getting writers with a comic book heart who know their comics truly to write the story right......and dark victory already has that story that would be a perfect start
the last thing is this............if producers are worried about the costume look.............thats nothin', my idea is it could be made out of the same material as batman dark knight suit, but just take out the green and leave the arms and legs in black, but have the chest and back be in a dark or darker red(similiar colors of how it was in batman and robin......but way better) and leave the cape in all black or have the inside of the cape dark yellow.........but i prefer all black
and too reply to the comment christian bale made about him not wanting robin at all and he hates him..................he's just saying that because he dosent want anyone else stealing his spotlight thats why he wants to be solo, and shine especially if they get someone good to play robin like another major actor, probably bigger then him.............if they choose to make him an older teen or older.........so thats the reason bale is against it.
and if they do do robin and since they like changing things around for the franchise, maybe robin could be african american this time and get somone good to play the role i mean y not.........since they wanna do things different. they did it for kingpin in daredevil. and robins character has to be more rebel and more rugget and more ruff..........since this is a more serious batman era as they say. with the right way, it can work. but a robin in a MUST !!
7-01-2008 @ 12:44PM
Stunneroo7 said...
Batman's best "sidekick" in Nolan's real-world vision of the comic is his own inner conflict. Robin is simply not necessary. I would rather another director of Nolan's skill have his own separate take on Robin for two or three well-developed movies, and then have them merge later. This would be better than to have Robin thrown into the mix when we know the next Batman movie is going to be about checked rage (Batman) against unchecked rage (Dent/Twoface).
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:42PM
David Blixt said...
Yeah, it could work. Thing is, Nolan has been exploring the psychology (psychosis) of Batman. Robin is a part of that. It's not just about a loner becoming a dad, though the insta-family thing is important. It's also Bruce seeing himself in that kid, and giving him everything that Bruce wanted then - a chance for revenge, and the skill to carry it off.
What I'd want to see is how, through trying to help the kid, Bruce damages him further. What they both think is right is so skewed that the audience is horrified for them both. And at the end Bruce has to send the kid away, to protect him. THAT's a story I'd like to see.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:50PM
nz said...
I've never seen it work, but I don't know that it can't. The two big things working against him are his name (Robin isn't terribly tough or dark) and the mystique of Batman. Part of what makes him an interesting character are his roles being so polar and opposite -- Bruce Wayne, the playboy millionaire, and Batman, the silent loner. Adding a sidekick to Bruce Wayne would be fine -- fun even. But Batman isn't buddy material.
What might work is: Tim Drake's parents (if he is the real Robin, I just searched and apparently there are many) have a ton of insurance, so Drake is wealthy-ish and the same age-ish as Bruce. He is also a vigilante and butts heads with Batman. Pretty simple plot device for conflict.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:56PM
Joe said...
I think the introduction of Robin really would signal the beginning of the end for Nolan's Batman franchise. The character is simply too much of a cartoon - beyond his relationship with Bruce Wayne, he's an incredibly shallow character, and really doesn't bring anything of his own to the table.
I don't see any need to rush into a Robin story, for the character to be present at all.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:54PM
james said...
I totally agree with Greg Holkan, Robin CAN work but only if you use it as a story point and not some excuse for more merchandising. If you go with the DARK KNIGHT RETURNS Robin (a girl no less) it would be fantastic. Someone who idolizes Batman for what "they think he is" not for who Batman really is. She doesn't have to have a tragic story, so it wouldn't be a Revenge thing. What if in Nolan's Batman universe they create a cheesy tv show that has a ROBIN in it that was created specifically for kids to relate to. Then in the "real" world she sees the adventures that they go on and creates her own Robin costume and voila. It could be a relevant social commentary and would not be the whole Ambiguously Gay Duo.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 12:57PM
BobMikki said...
If they do use Robin in a future film they should, use the Dark Victory graphic novel as a outline. Its the only time I've seen a plausible explanation for Robin's existence, they turn Robin into the only link to Bruce's humanity. I really think thats the only way Robin could work.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 1:07PM
Jesse said...
Robin was actually named after Robin Hood, not sure if that helps the name at all.
For Robin to work he has to be family member of some kind. Bruce adopting some random moody teenager seems more than a little strange.
Reply