View Single Post
Old 02-16-2014, 07:52 AM   #257
Banned User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,713
Default Re: Robin or no Robin?

Originally Posted by BLobo View Post
Well, if he, not only fights crime with his bare hands, but also donates millions to charity, he is helping to fight more than one of the world´s problems, don´t you think? And don´t ask me to show you issues and do the job for you. If you were a comic reader, you would know that Bruce Wayne is often referred as a philanthropist. Not only in comics, but also in movies and tv shows. This is a well known fact. Don´t ask me to do your homework for you. Just start paying attention.

(shifting the) Burden of proof
*(see –*onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Since you're clearly so much more well versed in the world of the funny books than I, it won't take you long to find instances of Bruce Wayne successfully combating poverty.

See, I'm a sheep, and thought I had to agree with the likes of Grant Morrison, David Goyer, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, in that the cyclical nature of comic books means Bruce Wayne will never win. But you clearly know better.

Are you saying that because Bruce decides to beat up criminals with his bare hands he should instead donate all his money? I´m not sure i understand your logic.
>the point

>your head

And what would "his best" be? And how do you know that, whatever that is, would work better than what he generally does? You don´t know.
You really haven't understood a word, have you?

You oversimplify Batman´s role in crime combat, wich once again suggests that you either don´t read comics or you have some sort of vendetta against the character, hence your effort in undervaluing everything that he does.
Everything Batman does is reactionary, he can't apprehend people before they become criminals. It's Bruce Wayne's job (in theory) to prevent the conditions that creates criminals.

For an analogy, Batman fights symptoms, Bruce Wayne fights the cause.

Except he doesn't really, because if he did, Batman would have no reason to exist, which would mean no more comic books/films/cartoons ot whichever media you are in.

He doesn´t solve Gotham´s problems because he is not perfect. He is a human trying to do what he thinks it´s the best for his city. He fails, but that´s not because he doesn´t try to succeed.
Narratively, he very rarely tries. He's described as a philanthropist in the same way Superman is a scientist (he's incredibly intelligent). They very rarely do what they're described as.

If you like Robin so much, you are in for a big disappointment, because i don´t see any decent director in the near future going as far as giving Batman a teenage sidekick with a colorful outfit. Even Joel Schumacher had the common sense of making Robin older than what he is in comics. Burton didn´t like Robin, Nolan didn´t like Robin, Bale didn´t like Robin and i doubt any decent artist would like the idea of a dark figure like Batman walking around with a teenager wearing the most stupid outfit ever design in the history of mankind. No matter how you twist it, it just doesn´t sound right. Ain´t happening man. Just save your arguments and forget about it.

In the ridiculous comic books, every Robin wears a predominantly black uniform (moreso than Batman) and were 17 (except Damian, because he's a genetically engineered continuity mess now) when they took the role. The role was to train them to take on other roles.

Also FYI Bale said his favourite Batman story was Dark Victory, Tim Burton was going to be in Batman (dropped to focus on Batman), Batman Returns (he was even cast- Marlon Wayans got the role), but Burton felt the cast was too large, and before he was dropped from a third film, Wayans was set to return. Also, Chris Nolan did a film with Robin in.

Do you even Batman, bro?

Llama_Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote