I didn't even think Selina Kyle should have been in the last one but she was awesome. It really depends on how it's done. I really can't even imagine another Batman movie right now.

@r3d_rob1n said:

@ElGUitarist said:

@r3d_rob1n : yeah, it makes sense for Bruce to take in Dick or any other of those characters. But to use them as sidekicks to his Batman? Not so much to me. To train them to eventually become their own heros independent of Batman? That works.

The only problem I have with the not using them as Robins and sidekicks to Batman is that there are too many unpredictable situations. These future replacements need on-the-job training, so to speak, so that they get the true knack for being a hero. Without it they could end up freezing up at the wrong moments. It doesn't matter so much to me whether they use "Robin" as a training identity or not (as a former poster suggested). There is also the fact that he trains more than 1 Robin, they can't all be meant to only take over as Batman one day. They are important to him handling the crime in Gotham, and the only way I see them being effective is with some sort of training time in the real world.

I had the same problem with Blake in the Nolan movie (I refuse to think of him as Robin, he was more like Terry than anyone). He was handed the Batman mantle by Bruce with absolutely no training. He basically handed the keys of a tank over to a hot-headed cop that was tired of the restrictions of the law. It sounds a bit too much like the Punisher to me, and the two characters are actually quite different.

On an unrelated note... is there a post limit? I saw you mention it at one point.

The "one the site" training works. Although I have to refer to Batman not having that same on-site training with someone who was already a crusader.

No, they wouldn't all be meant for the mantle. Like I said, they would be meant to be their own individual heros, independent of Batman or even Gotham. But when they day Bruce can't do it anymore, yeah, one of them should be the next Batman.

I'm still fine with the Blake situation. He's had more training dealing with criminals than Bruce did. Bruce was trained the LoS, having only dealt with criminals by being one of them. Blake was a detective. Sure he won't be the ultimate martial artist that Bruce was, but he will be a much better detective/tactician than Bruce was.

Yeah, these forums have kept me from posting more than 5 posts per day. Says that it's because I have a low post count, and will be able to post more than 5 a day when I eventually get to an unspecified post count.

@Twentyfive said:

Why the hell do people always want reboots of the same characters once their stories are finished?

It is really getting annoying. Let's see some new heroes for the sake of humanity!!!!

I want more Batman movies because I do not like the trilogy format that Hollywood has adopted. I believe that superheroes should be able to keep long running serials of movies, similar to James Bond. Occasionally a few of these movies can be intertwined (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) but in the grand scheme of things I think that they have enough source material, and the characters are interesting enough, that separate movies can be continually made. Not to mention that Avengers' success has opened the door to team-ups and group movies, meaning that self standing trilogies amongst heroes should become a thing of the past, in order to avoid continuity confusion.

Put another way, the last screen appearance of Robin was: Batman and Robin.

Since everyone loves Dick Grayson, I think it's time that he gets a do-over as well.

@Eternal19: @r3d_rob1n: Well, right now, there are more deserving characters for movies than Superman and Batman. But dumb old DC keeps falling back on them. Jesus Christ.

@Twentyfive: While you're right about DC not being brave enough to create movies about lesser known characters, that doesn't mean that they should stop making Batman and Superman movies altogether. So long as every film/reboot is different and interesting I don't care if they make 20 of them.

The problem here isn't that there are going to be more Batman films so much as it is that DC hasn't announced any other movies featuring other heroes.

@r3d_rob1n: We really need Robin to so they could evolve into other persona?

No, with trainning and the life they had, is obvious all of them will decide to take a diferent persona and ways to deal with things.

Is more easy to see them taking the decision of who they are and who they want to be, if they take the decision of his first idenity as crime figthers, Bruce decide a Bat for a reason, is easy to see, Dick, Jason and Tim would never decide to use the same suit, becuase well this guys arent the same guy.

I see a reason for the Batfamily, Rises show Batman needs people that help him to be better and dont let the darkness win, but that dont mean you need Robin to do that.

You need the Batfamily, because family is what matters and every single member of a afamily is unique, to many Robins could hurt the Batfamily concept.

@Eternal19: Yes Marvel is making a bunch of pointless movies, the point, is that Marvel isnt going to put Rocket Raccoon as Moon Knight side kick, also Marvel should stop and rethink thing before filming a bunch of comic books at random.

Also remember that more Comic booky Batman means Adam West and George Clooney, si no Comic Booky Batman for me, even as a Fan of Adam West, this Batman should stay in the 60s.

@ElGUitarist: That why i say he train them, sure they work with Batman, but they never get to be his side kick, Rises shows with John Balek and Catwoman that is easy to belive Batman working with others.

@DeathpooltheT1000: More comic book feel in no ways means more like the Adam West version. It simply means that Batman would be smarter, more tech advanced, and have fantastical enemies such as Freeze, Clayface, or Ivy. I think you are mistaking "camp" for "comic"

Also, I don't really mind if they make Grayson start as Nightwing in the movies, but I think that it would detract a bit from the character. The greatest benefit of them leaving the role as Robin is that it is symbolic of gaining freedom and a sense of identity away from Bruce. It's also one of the reasons I think that Red Robin's name is okay, because he still has a strong attachment to Bruce and wasn't forced out of the role like the others.

@r3d_rob1n said:

More comic book feel in no ways means more like the Adam West version. It simply means that Batman would be smarter, more tech advanced, and have fantastical enemies such as Freeze, Clayface, or Ivy. I think you are mistaking "camp" for "comic"

Also, I don't really mind if they make Grayson start as Nightwing in the movies, but I think that it would detract a bit from the character. The greatest benefit of them leaving the role as Robin is that it is symbolic of gaining freedom and a sense of identity away from Bruce. It's also one of the reasons I think that Red Robin's name is okay, because he still has a strong attachment to Bruce and wasn't forced out of the role like the others.

This.

@r3d_rob1n: Cocim Booky isnt a fancy therm for camp?, also, is a movie, Clayface would looks ridiculous and Freeze.

I know many people wish the next movies for some reason look and feel like the Arkham Games, even when those thing would never work outside of an animated movie.

Also, if you need to see them getting away from Bruce and get their freedoom, you mean Bruce is in some way an awful insane person that wants them to be him.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@r3d_rob1n: Cocim Booky isnt a fancy therm for camp?, also, is a movie, Clayface would looks ridiculous and Freeze.

I know many people wish the next movies for some reason look and feel like the Arkham Games, even when those thing would never work outside of an animated movie.

Also, if you need to see them getting away from Bruce and get their freedoom, you mean Bruce is in some way an awful insane person that wants them to be him.

Did you never move out of your parents house? Just because you want independence and a sense of personal identity does not mean that your guardian is a monster. Leaving the life of Robin behind is quite similar to moving away for college, or getting a job and your own apartment. It is a right of passage, something all teens must go through in one way or another.

Comic Booky is not a fancy word for camp. Camp implies that an idea is taken to it's extreme. An example of this is the common belief that Batman has an answer for everything, as such, Adam West pulls out Shark Repellent from a Helicopter. A comic book based movie just means that an audience must suspend their disbelief a tad more than reality, in order to justify that a man as smart as Sherlock Holmes, as trained as Bruce Lee, and as rich as Bill Gates is fighting a semi-monster terrorizing a city while the municipal institutions are too corrupt to care.

@DeathpooltheT1000: robin is a legacy just like in families they pass on the mantle to the next person i see no problem in the all the robins using the same costume and codename since they all have there own personalities and ways to interpret the role. comic booky does not mean adam west batman read some modern batbooks hes nothing like the adam west batman, i just mean that folllows the comics a little bit closer than the previous movies and explores the fantastical side of batman, we dont need another "Realistic" batman movie. and the new batman movies are Nolans interpretation of batman just because nolans movies say that doesnt mean thats what batman is and has to be.

@ElGUitarist: the robins need on the job training. batman wants the robins to surpass him and going out and fighting with batman from a young age will really help them with that.

@r3d_rob1n: @Eternal19: Yeah, but my family dont make me use a Robin Hood costume and get to beat criminals when i was a children, people know who Robin is ans his story, people is not going to forget he was a children Batman take and put him in front os mobsters as a human shield.

Comci books fan could live with this, but most of people dont, also notice that Bucky Barnes in the Captain America movies wasnt a children side kick and still was an important part of the movie

I dont get this fantastical side of Batman, Joel Schumacher did that and everybody hate him for that, even when Batman Forever was better that the Tim Burton movies, also is a movie, movies are more reallistic that comic books, heck even TAS decide to play more reallistic that the comics, if you ask people to belive Batman is the smarttes guy on the earth, the best looking, the best martial artits, the best at everything people will hate him, because he isnt human.

Also dont get Ivy as no way to get in a Nolan type movie villains, amazingly i have seen 2 fan films that show she is amazing even without her powers and that her personallity is so amazing, that powerless Ivy is as good as full power Ivy.

Bat in the sun guys arent my favorite guys, but their Ivy is amazing and Blinky Studios Ivy is amazing too, both are powerless Ivy, one in the Burtonverse and the other in the Nolanverse.

The Best Batman comics take BatGOD to the trash and remember he is a man, for the same he cant be the best at everything and every second.

Being Batman is about to push yourself to the limit, if Batmas has no limits, there is no point for Batman.

The most fantastical you could go with Batman in a movie, is Joel Schumacher and TAS, if you pass that, people will leave and go all over tha place and say Batman sucks.

BATMAN RULES, BATGOD SUCKS!!!

@DeathpooltheT1000: I've never seen a decent interpretation of a powerless Ivy. I will look for the one you suggest and check it out though. There is no reason that fantastical villains will not be accepted by the mainstream though. Many of Batman's greatest have some sort of power advantage over him. I truly believe that the Arkham Games have helped to brace people for the possibility of powered super-villains in the Batman world.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

I dont get this fantastical side of Batman, Joel Schumacher did that and everybody hate him for that, even when Batman Forever was better that the Tim Burton movies, also is a movie, movies are more reallistic that comic books, heck even TAS decide to play more reallistic that the comics, if you ask people to belive Batman is the smarttes guy on the earth, the best looking, the best martial artits, the best at everything people will hate him, because he isnt human.

I was a fan of Batman Forever, though I do think that having 2 villains in the movie ruined the characters of Riddler and Two-Face, especially Two-Face. However, I do not think that people would hate him if you make him the smartest, best looking, and best at everything. As long as it is not too over the top. Sure, if the idea was shoved down people's throats and he got to the point where there was no challenge, then yes it would suck. However, if done right, it could still provide a better movie than the Nolan ones. All Christopher Nolan showed us was that a determined billionaire could buy some toys and learn to throw a punch. I want to see Batman solving crimes and getting to the bottom of things. I want to see Batman devoted to the idea of saving Gotham more than he is devoted to being with a girl.

As for your Bucky Barnes comment, I have already said that I would be ok with introducing Dick as an older version. Perhaps around 15-16, but any older than that and you have another Chris O'donnell. I strongly believe that Robin (or whatever you want to rename Dick, as it doesn't really matter what he is called) belongs in a Batman movie. The character has been around and played an essential part since 1940. He obviously has some sort of appeal to the general public, one that would be accepted if shown properly.

@DeathpooltheT1000: everyone hated Schumacher because he made the movies very crappy if they make a more fantastical batman and robin it will be a new cast,writer,director, and better special effects. you cant just say the sci-fi fantasy side of batman sucks because of a few crappy movies. batman is a comic book charecter there most fans dont care about any philosophy behind it, we just want cool and interesting stories if you create a poll for who wants nolans batman in the comics most people will say no. a realistic batman is a boring batman.

Yes, and it should be Dick.

@Alch21 said:

They should stay away from apeing Nolan's version. The Robin route would be something new and different. Ideal for a reboot.

exactly what I was thinking. It would be cool to see another Robin like Jason Todd or Tim Drake.

Yes, of course.

Robin is an integral part of the Batman mythos and one of the most recognizable superheroes ever.

uhhh YES!! and Ace The Bathound!

@Eternal19: @r3d_rob1n: Dude, in Rises Batman decide that go way with an atomic bomb was the only choice he had, Catwoman give him the choice to leave and he decide to stay even when he was half dead, that he survive and had a happy ending was because he is BATMAN!!!

Batman is the only interesting superhero not because of the costume, but because why he is in a costume, if you take that out, you get a generic character, if you want a generic hero, there is tons of generics heroes.

To be honest, the reboot should be like Amazing Spiderman, yes is not so reallitic world, but it keep a movie feel, it get character development and care for the plot and character development more that anything.

No Avengers ,he is Batman, he deserves better.

@ManMartianhunter: Wait, is Ace still alive, i love that dog.

Yes he should.His costume should be more practical and should change but his color scheme should be the same.

@DeathpooltheT1000: batman is only an interesting charecter because of the costume,his awesomeness, and the villians he fights and the world he lives in, not because of his origin story if i wanted a bunch of philisophical crap i wouldnt read comics. but, i know theres nothing i can do to change your mind.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@Eternal19: @r3d_rob1n: Dude, in Rises Batman decide that go way with an atomic bomb was the only choice he had, Catwoman give him the choice to leave and he decide to stay even when he was half dead, that he survive and had a happy ending was because he is BATMAN!!!

What does this have to do with Robin being in the next Batman movie? Robin is integral to Batman's character. He has been a part of the mythos for 70 years. He deserves a shot to be accurately and respectfully portrayed in a movie. With the correct creative team and a hint of respect for the character, Robin will do for Batman movies what he has been doing for Batman comics since 1940, make them better.

@Eternal19 said:

@DeathpooltheT1000: batman is only an interesting charecter because of the costume,his awesomeness, and the villians he fights and the world he lives in, not because of his origin story if i wanted a bunch of philisophical crap i wouldnt read comics. but, i know theres nothing i can do to change your mind.

surely you can't believe that? Batman's character and origin have a lot to do with his awesomeness. His drive to eliminate the criminal element while not falling to their level is a huge part of Batman. Most of his major points are philosophical, one of the biggest being how far should he be allowed to go. It's what separates him from Punisher and what makes him unique as a powerless hero.

@r3d_rob1n: i dont, i started raging lol. but alot of batmans popularity came up because of the villians and the world he lives in its a pretty big part of batmans sucess as a charecter just as much as the origin.

@Eternal19: The complex villains and scenery of Gotham brings em to the table, but the inner-workings of the Batmind have them coming back for seconds

@r3d_rob1n: i was wondering is your favorite robin tim.

I grew up in the 90s. Plus the Red Robin series was amazing. Not a fan of the character's direction since the New 52 though. I like all the Robins though, I enjoy the juxtaposition of Batman and Robin. It's one of the things that makes me wonder if Damian can last. He may be best suited for becoming Nightwing's sidekick, but not for at least a couple years.

I think it's time for Robin to shine on film if done right. It would be awesome because in the sequel he could become Nightwing and we could watch him grow. I think they should make him at least 16 tho, he should be able to legally drive.

@r3d_rob1n: ya i liked the way there relationship formed when Dick was batman and he would make an interesting sidekick to him. Damian is my favorite robin since i find him to have the most potential as a charecter.But, i think its mostly because i barely had any exposure to any of the other robins. i started reading batman books when Morrison started writing them.

Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

Based on 70+ years of Bruce being a big bad feared figure with a sidekick has worked as evidenced by the fact that you think that is his character.

Batman having a sidekick doesn't "fit"?

Hmmm.... reminds me of the time some comic writer (can't remember the name) was taking over on the Wolverine book. When asked if Jubilee would be making an appearance, he said no because Wolverine as the "ultimate hunter" (or predator or something) wouldn't be running around with someone in a yellow raincoat. Forgetting, I guess, that Wolverine himself wears yellow spandex.

Batman not having a Robin strikes me as the same essential misunderstanding of a character as the above statement does. Why should Batman have a Robin?

The same reason he should be fighting Poison Ivy, Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, and Penguin.

Because THAT'S Batman.

@Durakken said:

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

Based on 70+ years of Bruce being a big bad feared figure with a sidekick has worked as evidenced by the fact that you think that is his character.

I think that's his character because that is what Bruce wants and tries for the Batman character, and that is what's portrayed in his solo adventures (which really, most of the best batman stories are sans Robin as a sidekick).

If anything, the Bat family works best. They don't go out as a team, but they are connected, and work together when shit gets as real as it ever will (most recent example being Night of the Owls. Perfect example of utilizing allies/the family aspect without being campy with sidekicks. Allies>sidekicks).

It's kinda sad to think that not liking Robin or thinking it doesn't fit is a "misunderstanding". Yeah, keep thinking that. There is no misunderstandings/understandings. Just preference and opinion on what works. I don't think Robin works for the Batman character, but Dick Greyson/Jason/Tim work for the Bruce Wayne character and that whole "keep him grounded and away from the darkness because they're similar" thing. So bite me if you don't think I understand Batman :/

@TheCowman : again, it's about working within the universe that is established. In that universe, a guy in yellow spandex can be accepted as the ultimate hunter. That does not mean anything else ridiculous is fair game. An ultimate hunter having a sidekick still does not work in that universe, apparently.

it's the same thing when people complained that Superman was hit hard by a bus being thrown at him in Superman II. "You don't like that because it doesn't make sense, yet a guy in blue spandex with superpowers makes sense? lol" No. In that universe we accept that Superman is possible and blue spandex is aceptable. What is wrong is that the in the universe, it is accepted that he can lift a tectonic plate to stop an earthquake... so how can he be knocked hard by a bus? That is inconsistent.

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

Based on 70+ years of Bruce being a big bad feared figure with a sidekick has worked as evidenced by the fact that you think that is his character.

I think that's his character because that is what Bruce wants and tries for the Batman character, and that is what's portrayed in his solo adventures (which really, most of the best batman stories are sans Robin as a sidekick).

If anything, the Bat family works best. They don't go out as a team, but they are connected, and work together when shit gets as real as it ever will (most recent example being Night of the Owls. Perfect example of utilizing allies/the family aspect without being campy with sidekicks. Allies>sidekicks).

It's kinda sad to think that not liking Robin or thinking it doesn't fit is a "misunderstanding". Yeah, keep thinking that. There is no misunderstandings/understandings. Just preference and opinion on what works. I don't think Robin works for the Batman character, but Dick Greyson/Jason/Tim work for the Bruce Wayne character and that whole "keep him grounded and away from the darkness because they're similar" thing. So bite me if you don't think I understand Batman :/

I never said not liking Robin is a misunderstanding thing, but thinking he doesn't fit is.

As far as "His best stories are without Robin." I think I can name 1 arc that works without Robin being part of the mythos. Could you rewrite those stories to make them work... as a story sure. As a story as good? Not a chance. You are focusing on the facade of Batman and nothing else. Once you get over that projected image that is only one aspect of a much larger story, without Robin, Batman is a much more boring character.

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

@TheCowman : again, it's about working within the universe that is established. In that universe, a guy in yellow spandex can be accepted as the ultimate hunter. That does not mean anything else ridiculous is fair game. An ultimate hunter having a sidekick still does not work in that universe, apparently.

Why?

If it's just preference, as you say, then what makes sidekicks not "fit"?

After all, I prefer Wolverine having Jubilee hanging around. And, judging by this thread, many people prefer to have Robin 'kicking for Batman. So if so many people like it and it's worked for so long, what is it that is inherently wrong with Batman having a Robin?

If you just prefer him solo, then fair enough. Everyone has their own favorite version of a character. But saying he doesn't "fit" with Batman's character at all implies you think there's something more fundamentally wrong with the partnership. I find your label of sidekicks as "campy" to be interesting. ARE sidekicks inherently campy?

I'd actually agree that they are, but then I think all superheroes are slightly inherently campy, so for me Robin still fits just fine.

Also, the allies/sidekicks thing just seems to be nitpicking over semantics. Batman and Robin were always having solo adventures, even when they were doing the hero/sidekick thing full-time. Insisting on calling him an ally rather than a sidekick just strikes me as insisting on calling them "graphic novels" instead of "comic books".

@r3d_rob1n: Well you talk about Rises and that why i talk about Rises.

@ElGUitarist: @TheCowman: @Durakken: You know people call them tha Batfamily, you are a sidekick of your father and mother?, no you are not, you are part of a family, Batman needs a family thats is a huge yes, does he needs Robin in that mix?

No, the Captain America movie dodge using Bucky Barnes as a Children Sidekick and use him as an Adult Allie as a friend and almost a brother, it wokerd better that if you saw the Captain America taking a children into the WW2 and teach that children how to kill Nazis.

If the Captain America change this thing why Batman cant?

Lets go with Robin in other works of fiction, most of the time he is a teen and getting to be a young adult, also if you want DC does enough Batman movies to get to see Robin getting into Nightwing you will need 50 years of movies, you just cant do the same thing you do in comics in movies.

The whole Avengers did it is a myth, because, well lest face it, the character are less powerfull, magic is science and all that type of things.

Also Young Justice and Teen Titans, used a character that was already in development, not starting the development.

@DeathpooltheT1000: Your bringing up the Batfamilly is dumb and irrelevant

What's important to understand is that Bucky is nothing like Robin. Bucky, and just about any other sidekick, is just a tag along character that has very little influence on the story and their roles are simply replaced by some random schmuck or damsel in distress, Robin's role cannot be so easily replaced because Robin isn't a 1 dimensional character and Batman and Robin was built around the other being there.

If they wanted to introduce Dick as Robin and then have him become nightwing you could tell that story in 2 movies and if you want build to it 6 years is all it would take.

@Durakken said:

@DeathpooltheT1000: Your bringing up the Batfamilly is dumb and irrelevant

What's important to understand is that Bucky is nothing like Robin. Bucky, and just about any other sidekick, is just a tag along character that has very little influence on the story and their roles are simply replaced by some random schmuck or damsel in distress, Robin's role cannot be so easily replaced because Robin isn't a 1 dimensional character and Batman and Robin was built around the other being there.

If they wanted to introduce Dick as Robin and then have him become nightwing you could tell that story in 2 movies and if you want build to it 6 years is all it would take.

I have to agree with what you're saying here. Robin isn't a sidekick, he's a fully fledged character in his own right, they wouldn't have been able to have a successful long running Robin series otherwise.

A lot of non-Batman fans really underestimate the role of Robin, they forget what Bruce became when he didn't have a Robin after Jason's death and before Tim took the role. Bruce actually admitted to Dick in a recent issue of Batman that Dick did more good for him than he ever did for Dick.

No. It should be about Terry.

@gravitypress said:

No. It should be about Terry.

Man just reading this set me off on a whole train of thought about how they could do a Batman title with Terry as the main character.

They could loosely tie it into Nolan's trilogy. Perhaps have Bruce return to Gotham in secret and live as a recluse in the Batcave or abandoned parts of the manor, presumably his relationship with Selina could've ended badly (though perhaps they did have a child *cough*Damian*cough*), he could've fired Blake from the role (this could be explained in a variety of ways) some years before Terry discovers the cave. You could then have Bruce reluctantly training Terry to become Batman.

No.

@LuigiBat said:

@Durakken said:

@DeathpooltheT1000: Your bringing up the Batfamilly is dumb and irrelevant

What's important to understand is that Bucky is nothing like Robin. Bucky, and just about any other sidekick, is just a tag along character that has very little influence on the story and their roles are simply replaced by some random schmuck or damsel in distress, Robin's role cannot be so easily replaced because Robin isn't a 1 dimensional character and Batman and Robin was built around the other being there.

If they wanted to introduce Dick as Robin and then have him become nightwing you could tell that story in 2 movies and if you want build to it 6 years is all it would take.

I have to agree with what you're saying here. Robin isn't a sidekick, he's a fully fledged character in his own right, they wouldn't have been able to have a successful long running Robin series otherwise.

A lot of non-Batman fans really underestimate the role of Robin, they forget what Bruce became when he didn't have a Robin after Jason's death and before Tim took the role. Bruce actually admitted to Dick in a recent issue of Batman that Dick did more good for him than he ever did for Dick.

This is completely correct. Robin is as integral a part of the Batman mythos as the rest of the cast of characters present in the Batman books. See, what people don't understand, is Robin is Bruce's tether to the real world. His way of fulfilling that father role for a child who's lost theirs. And even more important, is that it has been recently established that Batman let them be Robin to help them get their rage out of their system so they can actually stop when they're adults. (At least with Dick and Jason).

He (or she, if they do Stephanie) should be in it at some point. Although he (or she) does not belong in the first one.

I think they should introduce Robin into the movies, too. They don't have to reboot, all they have to do is adapt the Nolanverse to include more fantastical elements. To me, if they could make Hitgirl so successful in the Kickass movies then it's possible to pull off Robin in the Batman movies. I mean Hitgirl was this tiny little runt that managed to make little girls kicking ass both entertaining and almost realistic. If you can suspend your perception of reality for a minute then they could do it for Robin, too. Robin doesn't even have to be a boy. Perhaps he could be an older male with a youthful appearance similar to the way Bucky is a youthful adult male in the Captain America movie. It's great that Nolan made Batman more realistic, but now the trick is to balance that out with the fantastical, so that Batman movies can stay true to the comics. For example, The Avengers movie does this elegantly. Now it's time to balance out the real with cars and planes shaped like Bats, man-bats, and Killer Crocs, Lazerus pits, and men with ray guns that turn people to ice. If Marvel can do it with Avengers, DC should be able to do it with Batman.

I think that introducing Robin into the next set of Batman movies could work. I'd like to see it so long as the filmmakers behind the project have a good story behind it and they don't just revert to the silliness and campiness of the Adam West or Joel Schumacher Batman franchises. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, a Robin origin story would be a good way to start the next Batman franchise.

Introducing Robin would be easy...

We know Batman's Origin and people are pretty tired of Origin stories anyways

A lot of comic fans want more of their favorite characters and stories done but it requires them to get past the year 1 nonsense

So what I'd do starting the whole movie universe is something like...

Summer Y1: Batman 1. We have Dick Grayson's origin story

Winter Y1: Superman / Batman movie where it is Superman posing as Batman alongside a more experienced Robin. Advertise this as a not what you're expecting from a Batman/Superman movie.

Summer Y2. Wonder Woman movie with her origin done right. Use the DCAU movie as reference

Winter Y2. Martian Manhunter movie where his origin is told. Remember he's primarily a detective and doesn't quite use his powers like Superman so again, not going to be a summer blockbuster.

Spring Y3. Nightwing origin movie.

Mid Summer Y3. Flash movie, done more as a comedy

Late Summer/Fall Y3. Justice League movie. You have Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Martian Manhunter origins. You don't need Aquaman's and Green Lantern can be like Hulk. At the end you can also set up next summer's block buster by having Nightwing looking to put together Teen Titans

Summer Y4. Teen Titans movie

Winter Y4. Batman 2 would be Jason Todd's origin

Summer Y5. Crisis on Infinite Earths movie

Late Summer Y5. Booster Gold and Blue Beetle movie

Winter Y5. Batman 3, The Killing Joke. You don't need to introduce Barbara Gordon as Batgirl

Early Summer Y6. A Romantic Superman movie

Y6 I dunno. I think this should be somewhat empty or less action packed.Perhaps a Suicide Squad movie or movies that are funny or something like that.

Y7 Batman 4. Largely a solo Batman movie, but Tim drake is introduced and takes on the mantle of robin at the end.

Y7 Superman movie. Death of Superman

Y7 The Fall of Hal Jordan

early Y8. Batman 5 Ends with Bane Breaking Batman's Back.

I could continue, but it wouldn't take that long and there is more than enough stories to put in there. It is just a matter of placing them and getting people to agree to film them back to back or WB has to get off the whole idea of the same actor plays the same role. Also you might notice that I said 2 non-standard Superman movies which I think would do much better to establish Superman as a cardboard character and would make him deal with people other than Lex Luthor. Or only have him dealt with on the side.

@LuigiBat said:

@gravitypress said:

No. It should be about Terry.

Man just reading this set me off on a whole train of thought about how they could do a Batman title with Terry as the main character.

They could loosely tie it into Nolan's trilogy. Perhaps have Bruce return to Gotham in secret and live as a recluse in the Batcave or abandoned parts of the manor, presumably his relationship with Selina could've ended badly (though perhaps they did have a child *cough*Damian*cough*), he could've fired Blake from the role (this could be explained in a variety of ways) some years before Terry discovers the cave. You could then have Bruce reluctantly training Terry to become Batman.

You know she could have died before Bruce, even Superman said he would die last, then Bruce gets back, take the fact no one could be Batman in the real world more that 10 years, Blake had to retire an other guys to take the role of Batman too.

Bruce loses the love of his life and then loses his faith on life, then Terry gets in his life stole a new Batman suit prototype, then Bruce notice Terry wants justice and make the world a better place, so Terry, Batman and Bruce save each other.

I mean, in Batman Beyond they save each other from the darkness.

@xybernauts said:

I think they should introduce Robin into the movies, too. They don't have to reboot, all they have to do is adapt the Nolanverse to include more fantastical elements. To me, if they could make Hitgirl so successful in the Kickass movies then it's possible to pull off Robin in the Batman movies. I mean Hitgirl was this tiny little runt that managed to make little girls kicking ass both entertaining and almost realistic. If you can suspend your perception of reality for a minute then they could do it for Robin, too. Robin doesn't even have to be a boy. Perhaps he could be an older male with a youthful appearance similar to the way Bucky is a youthful adult male in the Captain America movie. It's great that Nolan made Batman more realistic, but now the trick is to balance that out with the fantastical, so that Batman movies can stay true to the comics. For example, The Avengers movie does this elegantly. Now it's time to balance out the real with cars and planes shaped like Bats, man-bats, and Killer Crocs, Lazerus pits, and men with ray guns that turn people to ice. If Marvel can do it with Avengers, DC should be able to do it with Batman.

To be honest the Avengers isnt as reallistic as a Batman movie should be, it would kill the whole Batman is a normal human thing, and dont get with the Whole Hawkeye and Black Widow, those guys are sidekicks, Batman isnt a sidekick, he is the main event.

So Batman could work, it would need to be in something like The Amazing Spiderman, even when in theory he lives in the same universe that the Avengers, there is way less fantasy in the movie, but enough to belive a human could help Spiderman a guy with powers, that is what Batman needs so he could work with Superman and the rest.

Also dont talk about Kick Ass, the idea of Hit Girl was to show how insane was to have children side kick and the problem with and older Robin, is that Robin dont feel like some one in his 16 or 17, it feels like a kid.

Also, dont talk about Bucky for some reason people forget, he is pretty much the evidence that even uin the super fantasy not dark at all Marvel movie universe, children side kick make you look insane.

@LuigiBat: @Durakken: You notice that to have all the Robins you would need their own trilogy right?

So they could move to another character, that would mean 9 Batman movies, that would mean a decade of Batman movies, one coming every year.

Also, would people go to see Robin movies?

Does Bruce/Batman really needs a Robin to be a father?

No, Dick, Jason and Tim are his family, if they use or not the Robin costume, that wouldnt change that.

We need the guys that used to be Robin in the movies, but we dont need the Robin costume, is just a costume.

We need Batman as a loner.