El Payaso said:
We disagree, Batman's origin isn't representative of everything that Batman is and can be. Representing a small section is simply not the same as representing the entirety.
Your accusation of fallacy smells a lot like a fallacy.
You inserted the word origin into an arguement in which it was not relevant, in my estimation. Later in this post you explain why you do that.
Maybe. But the fact is that Robin was the tool they used to make Batman campy. That's the whole point.
But that's also incomplete. Batman's entire attitude and M.O. changed, and would have changed regardless. Robin was simply a part of a solution to a problem, and not a deciding factor in any way whatsoever.
If Robin had been invented before that time then Batman and Robin would have became campy before that time. Batman didn't became campy at one point with Robin being there by an amazing coincidence. Robin appeared specifically to add the campy touch.
I disagree. Dark child sidekick characters have been done before, there's no reason that Robin couldn't have done/been that, if the writers had wanted. It's not a coincidence, but it's still a writer and not the character.
In fact writers made Robin originally a campy absurd character. So by himself or under the writers excuse, he's still campy.
He was campy, just like *was* campy Batman.
You say Robin was a cool character untill Schumacher took it?
Ah, good point. Clarification: He was a cool character in the comics at that time
Basically Robin wears a ridiculous gaudy-colourful suit that includes green elf shoes and meat color panties, says 'holy' now and then and adds a gay/pedo vibe to the Batman concept.
Hm. It's interesting you use present tense here, where it is not correct. I think that's the heart of our disagreement, you are still in the past. I believe comedians add a gay/pedo vibe to Batman more than anyone else.
In time, they changed the colors, the suit design, the words in his mouth, personality etc etc. So when they had this different character named Robin instead of the original, they offered a better product (and they did because the character was already there so why not? It's not like the character itself is inherently necessary like Gordon is).
Same thing they did with Batman. And no fictional entity can be inherently essential. All characters, especially comic book ones with 40+ years of history, are better products with different words in their mouths and different personalities from the origional. Typically with better costumes too.
But Robin still screams campy because most people remember who he really is. That's why Burton didn't use him and that's why Nolan said he won't use him. And that's why Schumacher did use him.
And here is our main disagreement. Here is why you use present tense verbs to refer to the past. I don't think we'd say that being a winged-Punisher type character is "Who Batman really is." You seem to be equating the meta-reason for Robin's origin with "Who he really is," yet you don't do this for any other characters, and neither does anyone else. So, somehow, this character I read is magically "not really Robin" and the one who appeared in 1938 is because... because you say so?
My statement is this: The character which you dislike, the character in question, is not "Who Robin Really Is," but rather "Who Robin Is Perecieved To Be," or at worst "What Robin Represents" though I would stipulate he only represents that to the uninformed.
Just as there's more to a person than why their parents conceived them, there is more to a character than what they were created for. All characters evolve over time, Robin is no different.
In a media where character concepts change often and easily, resting multiple characters' identity on a single iteration strikes me as shortsighted. At the very least, it seems to be oblivious to 20+ years of comics.
I understand many people feel this way, but it is still illogical, and I expect better from comic book fans.
I was so scared to click on this thread. Whew!
