Allstar wrote:

BlairCo wrote: There's me.

Why do you deny Nolan's vision? I don't understand.

Nothing can ever be straight-forward.

What bothers me is Nolan said that Robin wouldn't appear in his trilogy. They handled the character well, but it seems obvious to me that it was obviously Jonathan or Goyer who convinced Nolan to put it in, just like they did with Catwoman. I don't think it was in his vision to begin with.

aaron wrote:What bothers me is Nolan said that Robin wouldn't appear in his trilogy. They handled the character well, but it seems obvious to me that it was obviously Jonathan or Goyer who convinced Nolan to put it in, just like they did with Catwoman. I don't think it was in his vision to begin with.

Just because the character's name is Robin, doesn't mean he's the character.

aaron wrote:What bothers me is Nolan said that Robin wouldn't appear in his trilogy. They handled the character well, but it seems obvious to me that it was obviously Jonathan or Goyer who convinced Nolan to put it in, just like they did with Catwoman. I don't think it was in his vision to begin with.

It's not "Robin" in the true sense though. The standard route would be Dick Grayson; this is a Robin surrogate, basically.

BlairCo wrote:

aaron wrote:What bothers me is Nolan said that Robin wouldn't appear in his trilogy. They handled the character well, but it seems obvious to me that it was obviously Jonathan or Goyer who convinced Nolan to put it in, just like they did with Catwoman. I don't think it was in his vision to begin with.

Just because the character's name is Robin, doesn't mean he's the character.

Yeah, but then why make his name Robin? It was pointless to the plot and just thrown in as a nod towards fanboys, which isn't like Nolan at all.

aaron wrote:

BlairCo wrote: Just because the character's name is Robin, doesn't mean he's the character.

Yeah, but then why make his name Robin? It was pointless to the plot and just thrown in as a nod towards fanboys, which isn't like Nolan at all.

It could just be a reference.

BlairCo wrote:

aaron wrote: Yeah, but then why make his name Robin? It was pointless to the plot and just thrown in as a nod towards fanboys, which isn't like Nolan at all.

It could just be a reference.

As I like to say, Nolan created is own mythology with Batman as a true artist of DC Comics. Therefore, he takes freedom.

So Robin or not, it's just a name. Come on, Nolan was ready to do everything he could possibly do to keep secret the maximum amount of information. At first, I was like," come on he lied to me. I'm disappointed!" But now, the way he treated the character, it is really amazing. And Robin can be Batman and not only robin (batman's co-worker).

Allstar: Everyone can have his own point of view. That's the reason why I defend the idea that you can think Wayne died at the end despite Nolan's point of view. (knowing that you can argue on both idea)

Alright, here's the one thing that tells me Batman was meant to be seen alive at the end. If Alfred imagined he saw Bruce, why would he imagine he saw him with the Cat? He knows less about their relationship, than any other character in the film. I believe Nolan left it open to produce/oversee a possible sequel should the studio want one. HIs tale is over though, like the Batman he is leaving this legacy to the next in line. Some of the best moments in the trilogy were in this film, but unfortunately some of the worst too.

TJ418 wrote:
No it isn't and if Nolan never made Inception this wouldn't be a question

Wrong! If Nolan hadn't fucked with our minds in nearly every movie he's made it wouldn't be a question

This thread should be locked, the answer is straight-forward wether you like the decision or not is a separate issue.