i just saw the trailer for Dark Knight Rises at the final Harry Potter movie, it looks really good, but it got me thinking, would it work to have Robin in the last film? i know that Nolan said he wouldn't use Robin, he wants his movies to be as realistic as possible, but i was thinking, if done right, it could work, how about showing him toward the end of the movie? after the main  conflict is over they could show Bruce visiting the circus with Selina Kyle to see the new act in town "the Flying Graysons" (much like in the Batman story "Dark Victory") they could show the crime boss Zucco sabotaging Dick's parent's ropes and show Dick watching them die, they could end the movie with Bruce approaching a grief stricken Grayson and offer to take him in, show Bruce gripping Dick's shoulder or something with a lone bat flying in the air, then END CREDITS!! i think that could work, be realistic and stick to the comic origins. 
so what do you think? would that be a good idea? could they have Robin, or at least Dick Grayson and still keep the Nolan realism? or is Robin just too far fetched to fly?  
 

that kid could totally play the part, but I don't think they should add him into the movies

unless they planned on delving all the way into the story and the history between Dick and Bruce, it wouldn't seem worth it to me

it's a shame Nolan's thinking about this as the "final part" of a three part series, I would have loved to see him try and tackle Robin in his Nolan ways

I'm glad they aren't doing Robin, but if they did, I would've liked to see it as more of a tiny nod to Robin in The Dark Knight. The scene where the Joker is shown on tape with a tied up impostor Batman would've been a great chance to give a wink to comic readers, if it were a kid or teenager who Batman inspired and he called himself Robin, then Joker beat him with a crowbar on that tape. Yes, it's grim and probably would've been cut from the movie, but it would've at least gotten Robin in the film while advancing the story and not having to explain another characters backstory.

It would just seem like an after thought if they put him in the movies now.  Besides, Nolan said he's never going to use him and there is no reason why he should have to.

I don't see any need for him. They should focus on more important stuff in my opinion.

I thought about this a lot since Begins came out. I'm usually all for including Robin in any form of media, but in the Nolan-verse, I think I'd like to see him have no more than a cameo. Something like what  @The Stegman: said would be fine with me, although I don't think the movie should end on that type of note. Nolan's version of Batman is really about Batman and his mission and the way that Batman effects Bruce and those around him. That said, I just don't think there's room for Robin. 

I don't see any need for him. They should focus on more important stuff in my opinion.

@MrUnknown: @entropy_aegis:  How could there be 'no point' to having Robin in a Batman film?    I could see having the first couple without Robin.  Give Batman time to develop...  But that has happened already...  How many more movies will there be with the current team (actors, storyline, etc..)  2 MAYBE?   Batman was first introduced to the world in 1939.  Robin was introduced in 1940.  Robin has been with us, for all practical purposes, as long as Batman.  He's a huge part of the story.  Robin was basically the first super hero side kick...  He's the quintessential sidekick...  And he's an interesting character if written properly.  The relationship between Batman and Robin give us a chance to see another side of the Dark Knight...  I would very much like to see it in the next movie.

If they did add Robin, he would have to be a little bit more darker.

It annoys me when fans are perfectly fine with Batman having Robin in the comics, yet when talk about having him in the movies comes up those same fans throw the whole "child endangerment" argument up which I find pretty annoying as if it's believable in the comics, why not in a movie? I mean would it really be that hard to for the general public to believe that Batman could have a teenage sidekick? If they're fine with it in the comics, games, animated movies, and cartoons....then why not the movies?

They could go straight to Nightwing, that could work.

Nope, the point of Nolan films has been focusing on Batman before he becomes the "Batman we know", basically Batman year one continued, Robin is still a baby when these events are going on.

I don't see any need for him. They should focus on more important stuff in my opinion.

It's not the end of the world if Nolan doesn't utilize Robin. There will always be other Batman movies.

Nope, the point of Nolan films has been focusing on Batman before he becomes the "Batman we know", basically Batman year one continued, Robin is still a baby when these events are going on.

I would personally love Robin to be in Rises so Nolan could show non comic fans how vital Robin is to the Batman universe and justify the character to clear up the nineties movie version of Robin.Realistically though it won't happen Nolan even confirmed this himself and Christian Bale threatened if Robin would be in Rises he would quit.Slightly off topic but since this movie will have No Man's Land in it this could be a perfect time to introduce Cassandra Cain to the non comic reading crowd even though I doubt Nolan will add her in the movie.

N.O.

Would everyone who answered yes or no on this topic be ok with a scene after the credits of Bruce going to the circus? Nothing else happens, we just see him walk into the tent and zoom out till there's really nothing to see?

Maybe next time.

@entropy_aegis: The cast is already overloaded,and TBH Joker stole all the glory in TDK so i want to see some Batman badassey.Same goes for Bane and Catwoman. 
 
I hadn't thought to look and see which characters were in the movie yet.  Although, there's a very good explanation for why I didn't;  I'm an idiot... It's a curse...
 
So, there's Ra's Al Ghul, Cat Woman, and Bane.... Yeah... it's over loaded already...  That sucks...  But you know what's even worse?  Anne Hathaway as Cat Woman?!  REALLY?!?!!??  Honestly, that sounds like a one way ticket to sucksville....
 
Cat Woman?  Really?

@entropy_aegis: No, I LOVE Catwoman... I mean, not romantically and what not.... It would just never work out between us.  What with her not being real and all...  But I love the character and I want to see her in the movie.... And Anne is a pretty young woman.... But I just don't see her as Cat Woman...  She's an okay actress but not a great actress.... and she's pretty but not exotic... I've always thought of Cat Woman as exotic...  but to be fair, I AM hoping she'll surprise me...  When I first heard that Heath Ledger was going to play The Joker, I had serious doubts about his ability to pull it off...  DAYUM was I wrong then, eh?  Perhaps Anne will surprise me as well...

@War Killer: Having Robin in the movie is not a matter of child endangerment. All of the Robins take the role out of their own choice and being Robin becomes their motivation for persevering. For example, Dick might have committed suicide if he hadn't met Bruce and become Robin. But more importantly, Robin represents youth and hope whereas Gotham City is void of both expressions. The stories where Robin is involved generally become more light-hearted just from his sheer presence. And from the occurrences of the previous movie, and Joker's victory that he was able to corrupt Harvey as well as the likely possibility that Batman is going to be wanted even more so than he was in the first movie, I don't find Robin to be a good fit in the movie.

@Sydpart2: That would be quite alright if it fit with the ending. For example, if Batman retired or died then it wouldn't work. Personally, though whether Batman retires or not, I would prefer a narrative quote similar to how the previous movie ended to be the ending. With a few words, it energizes the Batman mythos and what the character represents whereas a Robin cameo or foreshadowing fails to do the same.

Because I don't really care for Robin but he is important to the mythos

No. He shouldn't

@Sydpart2 said:

Because I don't really care for Robin but he is important to the mythos

Who told you Nolan gave a crap about the mythos ?

um...making Gordon more than some fat guy, that told me. Nolan might not do everything true to the comics, but he keeps the characters very similar IMO

@Sydpart2 said:

um...making Gordon more than some fat guy, that told me. Nolan might not do everything true to the comics, but he keeps the characters very similar IMO

Why would anyone make Gordon a fat guy ?!  Nolan is a great filmmaker, but a poor comic book reader.

I for one thing the series should end with Alfred insisting that Bruce take a night off for himself -- at the circus.  He gives him a poster print, which announces the 'Flying Graysons'.
And then credits.

No.

I for one thing the series should end with Alfred insisting that Bruce take a night off for himself -- at the circus.  He gives him a poster print, which announces the 'Flying Graysons'.And then credits.

@Feliciano2040 said:

@Sydpart2 said:

um...making Gordon more than some fat guy, that told me. Nolan might not do everything true to the comics, but he keeps the characters very similar IMO

Why would anyone make Gordon a fat guy ?!  Nolan is a great filmmaker, but a poor comic book reader.

Ask Tim Burton. Nolan does a great job in respecting the source material but in changing it to tell his own story.

@Sydpart2 said:

@Feliciano2040 said:

@Sydpart2 said:

um...making Gordon more than some fat guy, that told me. Nolan might not do everything true to the comics, but he keeps the characters very similar IMO

Why would anyone make Gordon a fat guy ?!  Nolan is a great filmmaker, but a poor comic book reader.

Ask Tim Burton. Nolan does a great job in respecting the source material but in changing it to tell his own story.

So it's ok for Nolan to make changes to tell his own version the legend, but not for Burton? I'm pretty sure "Nolan's story" borrowed heavily from Year One, Long Halloween and Killing Joke.
 
Pat Hingle looked exactly like the comic. Fat, skinny, it doesn't matter. Perhaps Gary OldMan said it best, "There's boring old Jim Gordon on the roof, next to the bat-light." 

@Cosmic Cube said:

@Sydpart2 said:

yes, nolan changed minor things to tell his story, Burton however took the whole mythos and threw it into a fun house mirror because he's "to good" for comics. Why do people defend a man who's said "I would never read a comic book"?

Because we think he is a worthwhile human being. We like his work. We like what he brought to the material. 
 
Bryan Singer doesn't like superheroes either. I highly doubt Nolan likes typical superhero tripe, he doesn't even like Robin. And he tries as hard as he can to make his movies not feel like a comic book fantasy. 
 
Are you aware that Nolan complimented Burton in the press, and has at least praised B89? He called it "brilliant," which even I wouldn't say. Bruce Timm is also a fan. So I'm in good company.