The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!! - Part 1

[Secret Fawful]

I think I might write a fancomic about Robin in a Nolanized world. Because it's just not that friggin hard. See you all in the fanart board...eventually.

 

[Yurka]

Gordon and Dent were no less heroes in that film than Batman was (though Harvey lost his way in the end), and they absolutely did not "dilute" the story; it seems to me that you simply put them in a different group because they don't wear masks. It really doesn't work that way. You haven't sufficiently explained what quality Robin possesses that makes him different from these other characters in a way that "dilutes" anything.

"It really doesnt work that way?" How so? Having two masked vigilante's on the same team, fighting crime together is obviously much different that Batman meeting Gordon on a roof. They didnt dilute the story because they were necessary and obviously gave different points of view. Robin would just seem like another Batman, unless they approached him much differently and that means more screentime for him, which would in the end dilute Batmans story.
Better?

I think your analysis of how superhero adaptations are supposed to work is limited and simplistic. Whether a character "dilutes' a story has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's the second hero or the third hero or the tenth hero of the piece; it's determined by how the story is structured and how the character functions within it.

Stop the condescending tone. Ten heroes wouldnt hurt a story? I'd like to see that movie. Theres a reason these movies dont have multiple masked heroes in them. In the case of this franchise, Nolan has said multiple times that this trilogy is about Batman. Of course that doesnt mean Robin cant be in it, but when you start to incorporate another heroes story, it seems like whats the point? Unless Robin is absolutely neccessary why put him in?

Consider that no competent writer says "I want Two-Face, he's cool!" and shoehorns him into a story where he doesn't fit; they design a story where he does fit. Dent had a purpose in that story; his role strengthened the story of Bruce Wayne, it contributed, and the same would be true of a quality adaption of Robin. The writer builds a story where these characters serve a purpose and strengthen the narrative--so that, no, they do not "dilute" it.

Thank you, I understand that characters are added to strengthen a story.
(see above)

It isn't? It seems like what you keep telling me is that you can't see how to do it.

I said I dont see the point of including him, the franchise is fine without him so why think about where he could factor in?

The audience doesn't know what it wants, which is why it's the audience, and not the artist. The audience probably thinks that a lot of ideas are bad, simply because they lack the creative talent to conceive of how those ideas can be made to work. That's why the artist is there, to show the audience what it couldn't think of on it's own.

I agree. But if the poll at the top^ or any other poll regarding peoples opinions of Robin is indicative as to how they really feel towards him, then the majority does not like him, therefore why include him? I have faith that they could create a great Robin story at some point with the right talent. I cant picture him in this franchise most likely because that would just add someone to Bruce's side, and Batman being an outsider and a outcast is pretty crucial to the character. It should be Batman vs. the World. Including Robin would make it less polarizing I guess. Knowing that there is another person like Batman takes away from his mystique.
That doesnt mean I cant "imagine" a story with Robin, again, just whats the point?

I am not talking about including him in The Dark Knight Rises, since we already know he won't be in it. He could have been, though that likely would have been a very different movie than the one that appears to be taking shape. I'm talking about a purely hypothetical film.

If there were a new franchise a few years from now, I would most likely have no problem with Robin being in it from the beginning. (Granted they have quality talent behind it)

 

[Mr. Earle]

So Rhodey deluted Ironman's story in IM2? The story that was all about Tony realizing he cant do it on his own and learning to accept help, both from Rhodey and Shield?

 

[Mr. Earle]

"It really doesnt work that way?" How so? Having two masked vigilante's on the same team, fighting crime together is obviously much different that Batman meeting Gordon on a roof. They didnt dilute the story because they were necessary and obviously gave different points of view. Robin would just seem like another Batman, unless they approached him much differently and that means more screentime for him, which would in the end dilute Batmans story.

So Rhodey deluted Ironman's story in IM2? The story that was all about Tony realizing he cant do it on his own and learning to accept help, both from Rhodey and Shield?

Stop the condescending tone. Ten heroes wouldnt hurt a story?

Ever heard of team books like the Justice League or the Avengers?

I'd like to see that movie. Theres a reason these movies dont have multiple masked heroes in them.

X-men, JL: Crisis on two earths, Harry Potter (Harry has 2 wizards with him. Not sidekicks, but allies, equals), etc.

But really if it works in comics why wont it work in a live action movie? You're debating storytelling here and storytelling in itself wouldnt change. The only reason we havent had a JL or Avengers movie yet is because the general audience can only accept the concept of a superhero and a villain duking it out in the real world. They can believe in a world full of wizards and trolls and elves, but add some more superheros and give them the DC universe and they call it cheesy and silly. It has nothing to do with the fact that a story wouldnt work if there was more than 1 hero in it, because that simply isnt true.

In the case of this franchise, Nolan has said multiple times that this trilogy is about Batman. Of course that doesnt mean Robin cant be in it, but when you start to incorporate another heroes story, it seems like whats the point? Unless Robin is absolutely neccessary why put him in?

Robin is a supporting character. He is not another Batman, he is Batman's pupil, surrogate son, etc. Does it matter if they fight crime together? Its always been "Batman and Robin" and you can bet that most of the story will be about batman, him learning how to deal with a kid, him gaining some balance because of Dick in his life, him convincing Gordon to allow him to have a kid sidekick and the tension that would create, Bruce's role as a mentor, the parallels between him and Dick, etc.

I said I dont see the point of including him, the franchise is fine without him so why think about where he could factor in?

I hate when people do that. So a character can only be added if the franchise cant do without him? I've seen stories without Alfred so i bet Batman can work without him. SO WHY IS HE IN DA MOVIES IF WE DONT REALLY REALLY NEED HIM? HE IS DELUDING MAH STORIES!!!!

Sorry about that, but i hate when people make this arguement. Was Rachel irreplaceable in BB? Of course not, but she helped flesh out Bruce's childhood and offered a lot in terms of exploring him. Correct me if i'm wrong but till then writers/directors would have Bruce grow all alone in a mansion. Rachel made it more realistic (Bruce wouldnt seclude himself completely), gave Bruce someone to talk to besides Alfred, and gave him some moral dillemas and challenges that helped him grow.

I agree. But if the poll at the top^ or any other poll regarding peoples opinions of Robin is indicative as to how they really feel towards him, then the majority does not like him, therefore why include him?

Because those people only know Robin from the Adam West show and the Schumacher movies and have no idea what the character is about? Because they have no ****ing clue? Because he's a great character that deserves to be adapted? Because he could be redeemed like how Batman was after B&R?

 

[Yurka]

How was IM1 compared to IM2? Not saying War Machine was what made it bad by any means but not much in that movie was great.

 

[Mr. Earle]

How was IM1 compared to IM2? Not saying War Machine was what made it bad by any means but not much in that movie was great.

IM1 was too simplistic for me. I prefer IM2 because it was more complex, even though they kinda screwed up the plot lines a bit.

But like you said yourself, Rhodey was not to blame. He didnt dilute Tony's story even if he wore an Ironman suit with even more guns on it. So why would you think that a kid would steal Batman's thunder or dilute his story?


PS: I added more stuff to my previous post.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

fixing this...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

"It really doesnt work that way?" How so? Having two masked vigilante's on the same team, fighting crime together is obviously much different that Batman meeting Gordon on a roof. They didnt dilute the story because they were necessary and obviously gave different points of view. Robin would just seem like another Batman, unless they approached him much differently and that means more screentime for him, which would in the end dilute Batmans story.
Better?

Nope, cuz it doesn't make sense. Everybody knows Robin isn't another Batman. He seems more psychotic to the criminals, he runs around jumping in the shadows, giving little glimpses of himself, while howling, earning himself the name the laughing demon or devil or something. But with the bigger opponents who aren't scared, he employs the same tactic of distraction with a different technique, he talks to them, and Gordon. There are a few ways to the GA why they are different and just the fact that they differ in opinions on most things, he always does as he is told, but he always has his own opinion.

Stop the condescending tone. Ten heroes wouldnt hurt a story? I'd like to see that movie. Theres a reason these movies dont have multiple masked heroes in them. In the case of this franchise, Nolan has said multiple times that this trilogy is about Batman. Of course that doesnt mean Robin cant be in it, but when you start to incorporate another heroes story, it seems like whats the point? Unless Robin is absolutely neccessary why put him in?

You do realise Robin IS Batman. Literally. Right now, I'm reading Batman and Robin, guess who's Batman? Robin is important to Batman, from a legacy point of view, he is everything Bruce is capable of and more, under his watch Gotham could actually see some light. From Bruce's psyche having Robin with him helps him share his burden. If you read the stories about Bruce's psychological standpoint having Nightwing with him as an adult reminded him of better days, when he enjoyed having Dick by his side. But Dick reminded him of Jason, and he almost resented Dick for that, but Bruce realises that's his own fault and not Dick's he then enjoys having him with him again. Robin is the light to Batman's dark.


And as for 10 heroes in a good movie? X-Men. X2: X-Men United.

Thank you, I understand that characters are added to strengthen a story.
(see above)

Then you realise that Robin could have easily been incorporated into the series?

I said I dont see the point of including him, the franchise is fine without him so why think about where he could factor in?

The point isn't whether he would fit in now, it is that he easily could have.

I agree. But if the poll at the top^ or any other poll regarding peoples opinions of Robin is indicative as to how they really feel towards him, then the majority does not like him, therefore why include him? I have faith that they could create a great Robin story at some point with the right talent. I cant picture him in this franchise most likely because that would just add someone to Bruce's side, and Batman being an outsider and a outcast is pretty crucial to the character. It should be Batman vs. the World. Including Robin would make it less polarizing I guess. Knowing that there is another person like Batman takes away from his mystique.
That doesnt mean I cant "imagine" a story with Robin, again, just whats the point?

Do you know what the first rule of Batman is? He has NEVER been alone. Every step of his journey he has had someone with him from his birth to the end of time he has had help. That is the official standpoint of all the of all the bat-books and directs all the bat-books (and therefore all of DC). It is the basis of Batman, Inc. If people deviate from the source material, it's not Batman.

If there were a new franchise a few years from now, I would most likely have no problem with Robin being in it from the beginning. (Granted they have quality talent behind it)

What if Nolan wanted to do a fourth with Robin? Hypothetically.

 

[Yurka]

Ever heard of team books like the Justice League or the Avengers? X-men, JL: Crisis on two earths, etc.

Yes. Comics usually have a liberty that film doesnt have, Time. I'm really excited to see how Avengers turns out since something on that level has never been done before.

Robin is a supporting character. He is not another Batman, he is Batman's pupil, surrogate son, etc. Does it matter if they fight crime together? Its always been "Batman and Robin" and you can bet that most of the story will be about batman, him learning how to deal with a kid, him gaining some balance because of Dick in his life, him convincing Gordon to allow him to have a kid sidekick and so on.

I dont like Robin or want him included because he tends to humanize, for lack of a better word, Batman. He's always been an anti-social and unique outcast and like I said earlier, I feel adding Robin in just takes away from his mystique.

Was Rachel irreplaceable in BB? Of course not, but she helped flesh out Bruce's childhood and offered a lot in terms of exploring Bruce. Correct me if i'm wrong but till then writers/directors would have Bruce grow all alone in a mansion. Rachel made it more realistic (Bruce wouldnt seclude himself completely), gave Bruce someone to talk to besides Alfred, and gave him some moral dillemas and challenges that helped him grow.
Because those people only know Robin from the Adam West show and the Schumacher movies and have no idea what the character is about? Because they have no ****ing clue? Because he's a great character that deserves to be adapted? Because he could be redeemed like how Batman was after B&R?

I have absolutely no problems with any of the supporting cast we've had so far, or any of the villains, really I've had no major gripes with the franchise so far. I dont like the idea of Robin in these movies, especially Nolan's films, for the reasons I stated earlier. Whether its Robin, Knightwing, even batgirl, I dont like them for the same reasons.

 

[El Payaso]

So Rhodey deluted Ironman's story in IM2? The story that was all about Tony realizing he cant do it on his own and learning to accept help, both from Rhodey and Shield?

Well, I know the Nick Fury thing went nowhere. But Rhodey did dilute one of the few Iron Man action scenes into some weird joke.

IM1 was too simplistic for me. I prefer IM2 because it was more complex, even though they kinda screwed up the plot lines a bit.

That screwing up you mention is why "more complex" is not always better. Sometimes less is more.

But like you said yourself, Rhodey was not to blame. He didnt dilute Tony's story even if he wore an Ironman suit with even more guns on it. So why would you think that a kid would steal Batman's thunder or dilute his story?

Because it depends what themes the character brings over. If the Iron Man story is about acceptoinmg help from others I'd say Rhodey or Nick Fury are necessary (even when, as I told you, I felt Nick Fury coming from and going nowhere).

In Batman's case I don't think fatherhood is relevant for his career. At all. If anything he should find something else (balance or whatever) in a woman. But becoming a father? Not to mention - and we've discussed this way too many times - that no one would give Bruce a child to raise to start with.

 

[Yurka]

Everybody knows Robin isn't another Batman.

You do realise Robin IS Batman.

Do you know what the first rule of Batman is? He has NEVER been alone. Every step of his journey he has had someone with him from his birth to the end of time he has had help. That is the official standpoint of all the of all the bat-books and directs all the bat-books (and therefore all of DC). It is the basis of Batman, Inc. If people deviate from the source material, it's not Batman.

Theres a difference between leaning on people for support and literally actually never being alone. I agree Batman always has or needs someone to turn to, and I think Catwoman/Selina will fill the gap left by Rachel in this.

What if Nolan wanted to do a fourth with Robin? Hypothetically.

I wouldnt like it, but I would accept it.

 

[regwec]

I don't think our creative choices should be informed by the reality that stupid people will make stupid jokes.

It would be hilarious if Bruce had sex with a guy in TDKR. Wither then the trembling, insecure rejections of Robin?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well, I know the Nick Fury thing went nowhere. But Rhodey did dilute one of the few Iron Man action scenes into some weird joke.

You mean the mansion fight? How was it a joke and how was it Rhodey's fault and not Favreaus?

That screwing up you mention is why "more complex" is not always better. Sometimes less is more.

The plotlines of IM2 were fairly simple, it wasnt some Shakespearean drama that would need a ton of scholars to make it work. Favreau just needed more time to put things in better order. But i got the themes of the movie and i found them much more interesting than: "tony is a *****e, tony is captured, he is a better guy now, obediah is evil, pepper blows the reactor". I'd rather have a movie with more ambition and complexity than that, even if it's not perfect.

Because it depends what themes the character brings over. If the Iron Man story is about acceptoinmg help from others I'd say Rhodey or Nick Fury are necessary (even when, as I told you, I felt Nick Fury coming from and going nowhere).

Like Saint has already explained, they would write the story to fit the characters. Nolan could write TDKR to be about Batman dying, Dini could write Batman realizing he loves Zatanna, Morrison could write Batman going into the future to stop his future self from going into the past to stop his past self from stepping on pooh because that would destabilize the time space continuum by creating nanotesticular worm holes and false singularities in the fallopian tubes of Catwoman. (wtf did i just type? )

So the next step always depends on the writer and what he feels like. Its not set in stone. Therefore there could be a story that naturally ties to the end of TDK and involves Robin. Look, i'm not saying he should be in TDKR, but that he could be if they wanted him to.

Or he could be in the next bat movie franchise. You say why, i say why not?

In Batman's case I don't think fatherhood is relevant for his career. At all. If anything he should find something else (balance or whatever) in a woman. But becoming a father?

It's not? Writers have felt that Batman as a character needs a Robin to help him keep his balance. That was the whole point of Tim Drake. That's for his psyche. As for his career, Robin is his comrade in battle, his successor, his contigency plan, his hope for the future. Case in point: Dickbats.

Not to mention - and we've discussed this way too many times - that no one would give Bruce a child to raise to start with.

Someone like Talia would. See my avatar.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yes. Comics usually have a liberty that film doesnt have, Time. I'm really excited to see how Avengers turns out since something on that level has never been done before.

X-men, X-2 and JL: Crisis on two earths are movies. So its been done before and successfully too.

I dont like Robin or want him included because he tends to humanize, for lack of a better word, Batman. He's always been an anti-social and unique outcast and like I said earlier, I feel adding Robin in just takes away from his mystique.

Fair enough. You just like gritty loner batman. That doesnt mean Robin deludes his story or takes the focus away from him. Its just a different Batman from the one you like.

I have absolutely no problems with any of the supporting cast we've had so far, or any of the villains, really I've had no major gripes with the franchise so far. I dont like the idea of Robin in these movies, especially Nolan's films, for the reasons I stated earlier. Whether its Robin, Knightwing, even batgirl, I dont like them for the same reasons.

The reasons you have mentioned so far have to do with other superheroes stealing Batman's thunder by fighting crime alongside him and i explained that this will never be the case. Now if you like loner Batman then that's an issue of preference, not an issue of storytelling.

Dick Grayson became Batman when Bruce "died". So Robin became Batman and got his own Robin.

Theres a difference between leaning on people for support and literally actually never being alone. I agree Batman always has or needs someone to turn to, and I think Catwoman/Selina will fill the gap left by Rachel in this.

He was never alone. He always had Alfred and since his third year in his career he's always had a Robin, Batgirl, Oracle, and sometimes Nightwing as his team/family. The bat-family as fans call it. Of course he's had adventures without them, but they re supposed to work together.

And it could be like this in the movies. After Robin is established they dont need to use him heavily in every sequel.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Here you are Yurka:

 

[Secret Fawful]

That's both awesome and hilarious.

 

[Yurka]

X-men, X-2 and JL: Crisis on two earths are movies. So its been done before and successfully too.

Havent seen JL:Crisis, but I do think X-men is one of the rare cases where a large group successfully works together on screen. I dont know if thats due to how different all the characters are or the script or directors.

Fair enough. You just like gritty loner batman. That doesnt mean Robin deludes his story or takes the focus away from him. Its just a different Batman from the one you like.

Isnt that the definitive Batman though? I like to think all Batman fans like their Batman dark, tormented and an anti-social outcast.

Now if you like loner Batman then that's an issue of preference, not an issue of storytelling.

Thats true.

Dick Grayson became Batman when Bruce "died". So Robin became Batman and got his own Robin.

Ah I know, I was just citing contradicting statements.

He was never alone. He always had Alfred and since his third year in his career he's always had a Robin, Batgirl, Oracle, and sometimes Nightwing as his team/family. The bat-family as fans call it. Of course he's had adventures without them, but they re supposed to work together.

Sorry, I meant literally never being alone, in the field. Its the bat-family thats always bothered me for the reasons I said earlier.

And it could be like this in the movies. After Robin is established they dont need to use him heavily in every sequel.

I would be able to deal with the Bat-family if theyre introduced from the first installment of a franchise. Just introducing him in Dark Knight Rises seems like too big a change of pace.

 

[Yurka]

Here you are Yurka:

Spoiler

lol, Warm, friendly and loving Bruce is not my cup of tea.

 

[Saint]

"It really doesnt work that way?" How so? Having two masked vigilante's on the same team, fighting crime together is obviously much different that Batman meeting Gordon on a roof.

Yes, I agree that it's different--I don't agree that it's different in any way that dilutes the story.

They didnt dilute the story because they were necessary and obviously gave different points of view. Robin would just seem like another Batman, unless they approached him much differently and that means more screentime for him, which would in the end dilute Batmans story.
Better?

No, not really. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the logic here. Gordon had his own, Batman-free screentime, as did Dent, to develop their characters as well--I don't see why affording Robin the same is suddenly unacceptable. Really, Batman's going to have plenty of screentime either way, and the time he's off screen is still going to inform his story, anyway.

As for perspective, Dick Grayson doesn't see the world the way Batman does, whether he wears a mask or not.

Stop the condescending tone. Ten heroes wouldnt hurt a story? I'd like to see that movie.

Go watch a Star Trek movie, then. There are lots of movies out there with large groups of protagonists. I don't know why you're hung up on the mask thing, but a protagonist is a protagonist, whether he's wearing a comm badge, a uniform, or a domino mask.

As for condescension, I'm sorry--I'm not trying to insult you, but I think what you wrote was simplistic, and so I said so. That's what I always do, in every conversation.

Theres a reason these movies dont have multiple masked heroes in them. In the case of this franchise, Nolan has said multiple times that this trilogy is about Batman. Of course that doesnt mean Robin cant be in it, but when you start to incorporate another heroes story, it seems like whats the point? Unless Robin is absolutely neccessary why put him in?

As I have already written, Robin doesn't make the movie any less "about Batman," the same way Harvey Dent didn't. As for "What's necessary," that is a function of the story the writer wants to tell. If the filmmakers want to tell a story where Robin is absolutely necessary, then he'll be absolutely necessary.

When Aliens was written, you can probably guarantee that nobody said "You know what this movie needs? A ten year old girl! That'll put butts in seats." Newt wasn't just some random character that was in the movie for no reason. She was there because the writers wanted to put Ripley through a specific character arc that could only be accomplished by giving her someone to care for. Hence, Newt. Now, I'm not using Newt as an example because she's a child--really, the characters aren't comparable that way--I'm using her as an example because, without Newt, the intended goals of the plot fall apart. They didn't need to write a movie like that; they didn't need to write a movie that put Ripley through that arc, but they chose to, and because that's what they chose to do, Newt became necessary.

Equally, if you put Robin in a movie, it's because he's necessary to accomplish your goals for the story and for the character of Bruce Wayne. So, whenever someone says "He's not necessary," well, I say welcome to fiction: nothing in the story is necessary until the writer makes it necessary.

Thank you, I understand that characters are added to strengthen a story.
(see above)

I'm sorry, but I can only respond to the arguments you present, and your arguments seem to make it necessary for me to explain certain things.

I said I dont see the point of including him, the franchise is fine without him so why think about where he could factor in?

Because that's what creativity is? The franchise is "fine" without Catwoman or Bane, too. A creator wants to bring things to the next level, to improve, progress, and expand them. It seems absolutely natural that one of the first items to discuss would be Robin, who has been so integral to such growth for the character in the comics. Clearly they've decided that's not a direction they wish to go, but I hope they at least discussed it seriously, first. I think it would be irresponsible not to.

I agree. But if the poll at the top^ or any other poll regarding peoples opinions of Robin is indicative as to how they really feel towards him, then the majority does not like him, therefore why include him?

I can only refer you to my previous statement; if they knew what they wanted, they wouldn't be the audience. Don't mistake me: I think it's perfectly fair if you or someone else doesn't want Robin in this iteration of the franchise--I just acknowledge that for what it is, not something that should inform the creative decisions.

 

[Saint]

Here you are Yurka:

I have to point out that Damian listening to an iPod seems preposterous. I don't imagine him as having any leisure activities, haha.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Havent seen JL:Crisis, but I do think X-men is one of the rare cases where a large group successfully works together on screen. I dont know if thats due to how different all the characters are or the script or directors.

Are there great JL stories? Yes.
Could they be adapted directly on film. Yes.
Would they be successful? Well it depends on the average joe and his tastes, but the average joe also went and made ROTF successful so success doesnt indicate quality. Therefore good team stories exist and can be made into films. We just havent had a lot so far and you just prefer loner Batman. It has nothing to do with a hero stealing another's thunder which you made out to be some sort of rule.

Isnt that the definitive Batman though?

The is no definitive Batman. Every interpretation is valid, but if you wanna go with canon, then no, the canon Batman currently had a Robin, a Batgirl, a Red Robin and another Batman in his family, and is currently recruiting more Batman across the globe.

I like to think all Batman fans like their Batman dark, tormented and an anti-social outcast.

I like to think that my penis is 2 metres long but its not.

Thats true.

Therefore the narrative of a Batman and Robin story can be solid.

Sorry, I meant literally never being alone, in the field. Its the bat-family thats always bothered me for the reasons I said earlier.

It depends on the book and the writer. Some writers prefer or are assigned to write lonely batman detective stories, others write more superheroic Batman stories, others write B&R stories. Mutliple titles published each month for people to choose.

I would be able to deal with the Bat-family if theyre introduced from the first installment of a franchise. Just introducing him in Dark Knight Rises seems like too big a change of pace.

Fair enough. I dont think we'll see Robin either. We re just discussing if a B&R movie could work.

 

[Two-Face]

I when DC made Dick as Batman and Damien as Robin....

 

[J.Howlett]

I honestly wish Levitt is playing a cop named Dick Grayson, part of Gordon's task force who does some further digging and realizes the good that the Batman is doing and decides to help.

I don't mind a reinvention of the character. Not everything has to stay the same all the time...right?

 

[Mr. Earle]

when DC made Dick as Batman and Damien as Robin....

Morrison's B&R, the book that featured them came in the top 3 in terms of sales every month. Apparently though you have to read something to appreciate it, not just judge with the little you've heard.

 

[The Joker]

I when DC made Dick as Batman and Damien as Robin....

You must not have read Morrison's Batman and Robin series. It is hands down the best Batman title that hit the shelves in YEARS!