The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!!

[Melkay]

Dick Grayson didn't stop being Robin because it was a weak concept--he stopped being Robin because he time passes, even in comics, and he grew up.

Right. So, why hasn't time passed for Batman? Or time passes selectively?
Or better yet... are you aware of a concept called "writer's intentions"?

Things don't happen in fiction 'just because', naturally. They happen because it's convenient for the writers. In that case, it was convenient for them to remove the character but leave the role, so they could go back at it with a new character, to try to work the inherent flaws.

[Todd] stopped being Robin because Todd himself was a brat and nobody liked him, so it was best to make him useful in a different way (that is, making his death mean something). He was replaced in short order with a far more popular character, and so Robin endures.

Basically, they failed with Todd in a different way they failed with Dick. Dick has been exploited for too many years and it was getting monotone, and the concept wasn't too god to hold itself, not like Batman. And Todd was killed because he was an unpopular replacement.
And Tim endures... In an intermittent state, bein in some stories, and mostly or totally absent in others, because that kid's got a life, right? Hanging on with the Teen Titans from time to time?

They can either keep it hanging on, leaving it out of most of the important renditions of the character (the Nolan films) and maybe he'll live.... or maybe he'll be removed like he predecessors if the public starts to dislike the idea of Robin once again. It's a binary thing.
Nolan it's surely tipping the scale towards the 'not liking Robin' case. Sadly, that's how pop culture works. Maybe he should get a medal for it.

So, no, authors do not keep removing Robin because he's "Weak and inconsistent." They grow the concept and they grow the characters who've worked under it.

And Robin remains the role who has 'grown out of itself' more times than any other... basically stealing the show in every origin and exit, becoming even more dynamic than the TITLE CHARACTER.
Call me a Batman Supremacist if you want.

It doesn't repeat itself. Every Robin is unique and every one them has a different relationship with Batman. Again: fiction is about progression. Robin has evolved.

Are you kidding? Drake is almost like a younger, happier and more hyperkinetic Dick Grayson. Batman treats him the same.
You call it evolution, I call it coming back on our own steps to correct the now evident mistakes.
Not very good publicity for the premise of a 'cornerstone character'.

Furthermore, your "If the dynamic has to be repeated, it's not good" logic is ridiculous. Dynamics recur in fiction all the time. They recur because they are powerful. Robin continues to appear because the dynamic between Batman and Robin is powerful.

Or because pop culture comics aren't ready to ignore/erase/rewrite decades of the presence of one character. It's a lot from you to assume that the reason is completely pertinent to the character dynamic. I can give you that the relationship is dynamic, compelling, sometimes even exhilarating... but I believe it's harmful for the characterization of Batman.

As I said above: Dick becoming his own man was a the logical place for his story to go. That meant shedding the identity that was associated with being a sidekick and creating one to associate with independence.

As I said above... ********. It was about renewing a dampened relationship dynamic, but without altering too much the status quo, just in case. It was about "this is not working anymore, so we have to change, but not too much... we'll change this Robin... for another one."
That's the real motivation. And since it contradicts lots of previously established things, it feels forced and contrived. And it doesn't apply just for Robin, but for every one of Batman's sidekicks, him being the biggest.

By your logic, Mary Jane must be a terrible character, considering all the times she and Peter have broken up.

It's all about logic and motivations, given tht Pete and MJ are not completely mature and often can't find a good situation for their relationship to flourish. Their is a much more common situation, whilst Batman taking a protege not only undermines his previous psychology, but also is not relatable to anything we commonly know. With that, motives have to be very carefully balanced, and the next step for Batman can't just be "I need another partner. A young boy... preferably, because it reminds me of Dick and Todd."
That's crappy writing. And it's insulting to readers (to the ones that notice the crappiness that is).

You seem to be missing the point. You argued that Robin is obviously bad, which is why he's removed so "often." When told that Gordon's been removed too, you said "But he still has the same relationship with Batman." So does Dick.

No, he doesn't. With Gordon, they can always go back to the place they were. With Dick, he won't be Robin anymore. And sometimes, Batman's in his way. And they fight.
For Gordon, it is much more stable than that. For Robin, it's not the same role anymore. He's not Batman's son anymore. He's just someone in the same line of work, with a past with Bruce.
And to fill that 'Robin void', they brought a "lighter" Dick. Crappy.

That's right, he doesn't have to. He also doesn't have to dress like a bat in order to explore questions of moral consequence. But he does, because that makes for interesting fiction. So does Robin's presence.

Except that with the Batman thing, they actually succeeded at making valid reasons and sound motivation for it. With the 'adopting a Robin, several times' they didn't. It doesn't make interesting fiction. It makes intriguing fiction, because the motives are contradictory, and that exposes the inherent flaws to the concept. Flaws that more than one poster has showed here (especially El Payaso) but the pro-Robins refuse to see because it is recognizing decades of the presence of a poor concept.

A concept that has brought many good stories, but that has meesed up too much with the title character, or has just greatuitously inhabited other sotries that would have been better without it.

 

[Melkay]

And I must ask if some of you Robin bashers actually know the history of Batman....you say they replace Robin because they want Batman to go at it alone....when the fact is, Jason Todd was specifically created just so Robin could stay a youthful archetype while dick could finally move on....Tim drake appeared a Year after jason todd died...A YEAR...hell, his original storyline was all about justifying Robin's existence....

Wow, thank's for making my point. Stay around, I could use your help again in a while.

 

[Melkay]

Dick Greyson was replaced simply for the fact that he was an 18+ year old in the comics going to school...he had already drifted from Batman at that point, appearing in Teen Titans for the most part.

And doesn't that tell you anything? Anything at all about the Robin concept?

Jason Todd was killed because thats what the fans wanted...had fans voted for his survivial, hed still be robin today probably

Here goes another clue. Get it?

I love how the worst you can say about tim is that hes a pain in the ass

The worst I can say about him is that he's harmful for Batman as a character.
Oh, and that his relationship to Bats has always had a cheap premise that got worst after the replacements started.

The "other" girl called huntress....Batman dosent even consider a close ally, who most of the time is working seperate from the batfamily due to her methods not jiving with Bruce's....not like robin...which is who we're discussing...not huntress.

Wow... when the definitions come from negation of the other, things go bad...

In fact, I would argue that Drake is the less defined Robin of the series, having too many similarities to the early years Dick.

I'm not even gonna discuss why bruce takes these people in, as anyone whos read a batcomic will understand why he does, not only that, im sure the points have been brought up, but you just continue to ignore them....

My dad used to tell me that you shouldn't kick him anyone when you have him one the floor.

Not only you chickened out from truly discussing Batman's motivations to have Dick in...
... but you also made a clumsy effort of calling us ignorants, saying that "the reason is there and you should see it"...
... while confortably ignoring the history of the debate and realizing that those points you mention have mostly been meres "Robin has been too many years around so he's ESSENTIAL" and "I won't even acknowledge all your counter-arguments.

Basically, you missed your opportunity of not typing a word.

But my daddy used to tell me not to kick people on the floor.
It's rude.

 

[Melkay]

... he is a bad character? ... he contradicts Bruce? That's not just obviously wrong, it's a slap in the face of the hundreds of people who have created and evolved the Robin dynamic over the years.

If those are your reasons for defending Robin... status quo and history... you've already lost this debate. I could make you lists of dozens of pop culture comic series that maintain flawed mistakes for the wrong reasons... status quo and company restrictions for staters.
Keeping Robin around may as well be a directive from DC executives.
And not all good comic writers like the character, or work with him.

If you're defending it because "it has been around forever! it can't be wrong" then your reasons are moronic.

It'd be like saying Sherlock Holmes is way out of character when paired with Dr Watson.

Wait a moment... are you implying that Sherlock Holmes = Batman? If you are, then you're the one displaying a tantamount lack of knowledge of the Batman character. Your call.

If that's the case, I suggest a little excercise. Take a marker, write the letters "NOROM" in your forehead and go to the bathroom mirror.

There you are.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

If that's the case, I suggest a little excercise. Take a marker, write the letters "NOROM" in your forehead and go to the bathroom mirror.

There you are.

My goodness. You called this a "debate" but all you've been is totally ignorant to others and made this into your own personal shouting match. A debate does not need insults, especially such petty ones as yours. Go ahead then, keep arguing that Robin is a void concept, but all you're achieving is justifying in your own sad little world with you as its population that Robin shouldn't exist. If you were to rise above my so-called "moronic" arguments you wouldn't have stooped so low as to offend me and others. Instead you have merely proven yourself to be an ignorant person who would rather trade insults thinly veiled as arguments than provide good reasoning and logic to your debate.

I would continue, but that would bring me all the way down to your level. Instead I simply bid you goodbye for now, and look forward to your current argument to continually be squashed while you retreat into your confined little circle of misinformed belief.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Someone give me the addresses of Joel Schumaker and William Dozier, I want to punch their faces in. I think the primary reason people dislike Robin is because of his portrayal in the Batman TV series and in Batman & Robin. One spanwed the disgusting "Ambiguously Gay Duo" nonsense and the other started a literal riot in the fandom that could have buried Batman Forever (pun intended). Chris and John Nolan saved Batman and brought him to the 21st century with no thanks to DC who were too busy pulling a Captain America and killing him.

But you forget how different writers write their characters differently
For Robin, something like a TAS style story would work ALA Robin's Reckoning
Comics come and go and the characters are constantly portrayed in different light. From the lighthearted fun of the 60's to Frank Miller's as I like to call it Dirty Harry as Batman, the tough and gritty 90's and finally the confusing world of Batman: RIP

Robin/Nightwing can be done. The question is "How do we do it?" not "Should we do it?"
At the end of the day it does not matter what WE think
If tomorrow Nolan announces that Roin/Nightwing will be in Batman 3, yes people will ***** and cry. But they will stop. Just like they did for the late Mr. Ledger's Joker. The good thing about Nolan is that he does not do anything for the sake of it. He gave us, THE JOKER. I hope soon he will be able to give us THE ROBIN.

 

[Melkay]

Methinks Lady Bale doth protest too much.

Haha, what are you now, the Guard of the Past things, no matter how defective they are?
Methinks you're not worthy of calling him a lady. There are whiners on both sides. Before replying to this, I left a guy with the word "norom" written in his forehead. Whiners everywhere.

He could use a cycle, another type of land vehicle or an air vehicle, and all would serve him quite well. And have, actually.

Of course... all logistic needs. They even have an intimidation purpose, widely argumented in the Batmobile thread. Take a look again.
Did you notice you are agreeing with me?

Gordon remains because he adds a valuable element to the mythology, not because he's "needed" to make it work.

That why I wrote the two other things apart from "help from the police". And they're not the only other two. You can ignore it at will if you want, I'll understand, I've had the lower hands in many debates before.

As the mythos has showed us, the cave is not a "need". He has satellite "locations" all over Gotham, many of them not caves. The cave is useful, but as we saw in THE DARK KNIGHT, he doesn't NEED a cave. It just works better. But while it's thematically relevant and visually stunning, it's hardly "neccessary" for him to have a dark, damp headquarters. Nor is it neccessary for a man who operates in Gotham City to base his operations out of a cave beneath his manor which is miles from Gotham. It's convenient, but not neccessary.

Same case. Read, little Guard, read. Logistics is only ONE of the reasons. And logistics are not about necessity, but rather about "utility".
And I've been arguing how that's one of the many things against the Robin character... in a semi-realist setting, where things are not merely taken for granted, he's a liability. And a huge one, for that matter.

You may want to rethink that one. Catwoman has frequently been antagonistic. And she is not "needed". The idea of a woman who dresses up like a cat isn't "needed". He could have this type of relationship with almost anyone. It doesn't have to be a "Cat Woman".

Thank you for adding to my point. I'm not arguing about the thematic identity of Robin... I'm arguing against his relationship status to Batman. For me, Catwoman could very well be Butterfly-woman and Robin could be Sparrow, and it still would be the same.
If you want to rewrite that as "not always antagonistic", be my guest. You still made my point.

Because The Joker is the opposite of a bat? Oh, because he kills people while Batman tries to save them, seeks chaos where Batman seeks order, etc, etc, etc.

The second. The many etceteras.

That's called a supervillain, or a villain, in general, and those elements could and have been found in another character who doesn't look like an evil clown. Again, something that is valuable as hell to the Batman mythology, but not "needed" or irreplacable anymore than anything else.

Again... not about the theme... but about the relationship.
Either you had a long day or you're just not very clever.

None of them layers that could "only" be found in The Joker.

But he is the one who represents them the most, the epitome of the super-villain who's completely opposite to Batman.
And because you asked for him, not anyone else. I can't spell it out about every character out there just for you. Not for free, at least.

How so?

Ok, I get you're not very clever, but you could at least save you all the typing and read what I've been saying in all the previous posts. And the rest of the others that talkes against the inclusion of Robin. Please. I recommend you El Payaso's post, or CFE little and moderate post about not aving Robin this time around. Plenty of reasons, all having to do with contradiction.

First, Batman does not see his quest as a mistake or a curse. He sees it as his mission. Does it present a burden, yes...but I have never seen him describe it as a curse and actually mean it.

Ok, burden. Happy?

Second, you are just assuming that for Robin there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Of course not, he just doesn't make the same work as Batman. He has a life, after all.
Exceeept Jason Todd. Poor guy.
Oh, and Barbara after she got crippled.
And the rest just go extremely well, because the hand of the authors keep saving them. Unless executives or the fans think it's time to cut them off, right?

Things turn out bad in the real world. They do. And we can't just pretend that's not the case, coping out with forced explanations or trying to ignore that with the job come great perils and neither of those kids have even a half of Batman's skills. If Bruce's is always risking his life, why wouldn't be the same for them?
But the fact remains that they aren't ready.
Unless the writers intend to ignore that little fact.
...

And third, you assume Robin would always be in direct confrontation with Batman. That's also not the case, as they've worked together for years and years.

See all my previous arguments... not only in this post... and add to them this one: "the kid usually is a pain in Batman's butt" (no pun intended).
My point being... if the reasons weren't really numerous before, we have also to consider why Batman would want to keep that annoying, stubborn kid around.
Empathy? Empathy broke the determined and focused Batman... not once, but more than five times?
Yeah, right. That's why it's so hard to take him seriously after Robin.

If Robin makes Batman lighter...please explain, Melkay, why have recent, more "Family" centric mythology tales been much darker?

Because authors keep reminiscing "A Death in the Family" and Bruce's failures with both Dick and Barbara. They recurr to the darkest moments of the relationships, exactly when the bonds were been severed by letany or by force.
Besides, it wasn't me who said that Robin "prevented Batman from sacrificing his own soul". It was the pro-Robins.

What's less coherent about Batman's personality design, exactly?

Oh, god, that's why I can't put up with you guys... one spells it out for you over and over, and you act like it didn't happen. Unreal.

I don't recall singling you out. My point was very broad.

Fair enough. Next time don't do it replying to my quote.

Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. Just like Gordon isn't always consulted or working with Batman. Saying "Robin's not always around so he should be left out of the mythology" makes no sense.

Since Batman no.1 to no. 37, as many people have pointed out, he was in every (and I mean every) issue. Why they haven't kept that?
They changed it. It was an irregularity. And... focus here... I'm not saying that "Robin's intermittent presence" is the reason for "not having him"... but that "not having him" and his "intermittent presence" have the same reason... bad premise.

When you reference "The most famous comics", you are clearly ignoring a major point: the context of these comics. One, that the most famous comics tend to deal with Batman's early years (when Robin didn't exist) or his late years (When Robin had long since retired)

TLH, TKJ, most issues of Hush, Arkham Asylum, I mentioned all those.

or, in the case of THE KILLING JOKE, a time when fans hated the current Robin.

Well, ain't that a cop out. And Tim Drake constantly being kicked off to the Teen Titans or to his own title series, what is that? More fan hatred?

ARKHAM ASYLUM doesn't have Robin, but then, Arkham Asylum isn't in continuity, either.

Batman no. 1-37 aren't in continuity either, and people have no trouble bringing it up. AA is still one of the most prominent and most inspired Batman stories around... guess what? No Robin.

How is Robin harmful to the story?

It's harmful to the main character.

Sidekicks have saved many lives, and helped Batman himself many times. They don't become hurt or killed simply because they're young. They become hurt because, regardless of their age, they place themselves in extreme danger that most people wouldn't. Now, you could say some of that is due to their age, but given the way these characters are portrayed...I don't think so.

I don't think it's due to their ages. I say it's due to their relative lack of sufficient skills, physically and emotionally. They didn't went through all the training and preparation Bruce had, thus, they cannot be as good as he is. And is problematic enough for him, so it's a lot of suspension of disbelief.

Does a cop dying make the idea of police work bad?

Does a fireman dying invalidate the idea of firefighting?

So why would a sidekick dying invalidate the idea of a sidekick?

The cop and the fireman can die, but certainly they were skilled and prepared enough... just surpassed by circumstances. But an unskilled policeman or fireman is a whole different thing... and they exist. They are putting other people's lives in their own hands, and a bad preparation is not only a risk for their lives but also for the lives of other people, innocent or not.

Tell me, how are you supposed to do Batman's work if you're not as skilled as Batman?
Or may we believe now that Batman... over-trained?
It doesn't fit.

Jason Todd came about because Dick Grayson outgrew Batman's shadow. After decades of writing him as one kind of character, and we're talking over forty years, writers had decided to evolve him into his own man, and had been doing so for about a decade prior.

We're talking about the eighties, the decade of alterations and improvements, and Robin was just another inadequacy being improved.

DC removed Jason Todd, not because the idea of Robin is a weak one, but because fans didn't like him in comparison to Dick Grayson.

So it's valid to say Tim Drake still around because people still compare it to Jason Todd?
Funny how fans minds work. Drake has been around for almost twenty years. Hopefully, with all the new attention Nolan is bringing on the title, things will not improve so slowly and we won't have to wait "over forty years".

Well, when almost anything major that's ever happened with a Robin has a massive impact on the Batman mythology and the direction of the character...I'd say the character's potential is good. Would you like some examples?

Exactly one of my points, the character takes energy out of Batman. It works very well on itself, individually, but tributes too little to Batman and in a not very coherent way. Maybe that's why Robin works so well in the Robin series and with the Teen Titans... he's not made to work along with the Bat.

Do you like Green Lantern? The Flash? Do you like any story with a legacy concept?

I like all of those and I like TDKR and Batman Beyond.... but Robin is not about LEGACY. It's about COOPERATION. Batman is not passing the mantle to another generation, like the Flash or Green Lantern... he's having a side-kick. A side-kick that's not very tributing, after all.

I know that. And I was humorously pointing out the obvious. The fact that he's not been present in all of the most important or famous stories isn't all that telling...because he's been present, period, in the larger mythology.

And yet it was an argument from your side.
You know who else has been present in the larger mythology? The Ventriloquist. And Firefly.
Are you suggesting that Firefly and the Ventriloquist are as integral to the Batman stories as Robin?
Moot argument.

Were they there in the "starting moments"? In almost every version of Batman's mythology, Joker and Catwoman are present very soon after he appears, and did come about before Robin appeared on the scene. Robin took a bit longer to show up in the modern mythos.

"Modern mythos" is the only thing that saves you there, because the Joker's first issue had both Batman and Robin fighting against him.
So it's not a thing about who has been the longest around.
Maybe we're currently entering a new age with a new mythos, one where Robin didn't exist or had a drastic change of concept. Hopefully.

I'm making a humorous, and, I would have thought, obvious point.

Robin's not in YEAR ONE because in modern Batman mythology, he wasn't around at that point.

You keep refering to modern mythology, undermining the argument of "tradition" and "old presence in the comics". Being present in the long run it's now not even enough for Robin, unless you consider "quantity" better than "quality".

 

[Melkay]

Read between the lines. In the context of the Batman mythology, the character has been deemed important and relevant enough to have his own YEAR ONE maxiseries and his own title.

He’s a great, important character… but he worked so much better alone that the third Robin actually debuted in the Robin series. And it spends much of his time in that title, or with the Teen Titans. Makes you think about his relationship to Batman, doesn’t it?

I'd say feel embarassed, because once again, you're not looking at things in context. As I've pointed out to you once already...in the modern Batman mythology, Robin didn't show up right away when Batman first got to Gotham. Harvey Dent became Two-Face before he did, and he appeared shortly after that to aid Batman in his early battles against Two-Face. So Robin not being in THE LONG HALLOWEEN means very little, as he was not AROUND at that point in the modern mythology.

Read again what I said about the Modern Mythology issue. From now on I will not quote anything else that recurs to this reasoning.

My mistake. I don't remember Alfred's role.

But I guess Robin wasn’t around there because Todd was a prick, right?

Maybe Alan Moore doesn't like Jason Todd.

Ha! I knew it.

I doubt DC would have used something like THE KILLING JOKE to spotlight him, given the time constraints.

They had enough time to put the Penguin, Two-Face, Alfred and Harvey Bullock there. How is not possible to add one little vignette with Robin? Not even the logo in some suit at the batcave, man.
Moore must have really despised Robin.
Oh no, sorry, just Jason Todd.

(which makes me wonder… why wasn’t Nightwing around either)
(maybe he was considered a deserter by the fans)

Hmm...I could have sworn that you were whining earlier about "titular". Seems to me the movie is called BATMAN: SUB ZERO. What does it tell you about Robin's popularity/validity that he had a sizeable role in a movie titled "Batman"?

It tells me that the title was poorly chosen. Based on the actual movie, it should have had been more like ROBIN & BATGIRL (and mr. Freeze and Alfred and that bald guy and the Commissioner… and Batman): SUB ZERO.
When Batman becomes the side-kick, the title is the less of your worries.

My point stands. You seemed to be so interested in titles earlier. In a movie with "Batman" in the title...Robin was a key part of the plot...in this case a more serious, and darker part, but a key part nontheless.

My point stands from even before, since I recall stating that I didn’t have a problem with Robin as a character, just his relationship dynamic with Batman. Once that is removed, I can really enjoy Robin.

Spin spin spin...you say he's hardly there, I point out that he very much was. I'll just point out the obvious again: Robin (and other sidekicks) featured prominently in many of the classic and most important episodes, both in BTAS and in TNBA.

It’s not a spin at all. I said that it wasn’t present in most of the first season, and that once he was established, the whole Batman thing wasn’t as important anymore. Robin was not treated like a supporting character, but as a co-protagonist (exemplified in the Sub Zero movie) which is wrong but predictable, since the character adds almost nothing to the character of Bruce. And what he adds, it’s not without contradictions.
Besides, of all the people here, you don’t get to call anyone a spinner. I invite you to read your previous quotes again.

I see...well, sometimes people misspeak, Melkay, and engage in hyperbole. Like when you made your comment about how Robin wasn't in most of the original BTAS episodes.

Glad you noticed. You can relate to the feeling, right?
Just to be informed, how many things are we permitted to forgive each other?

Well, I guess if I was to think that Batman's mythology is only about his first year and a half...I might not think Robin is important.

I already invalidated this point, showing you all the important works I was citing that didn’t took place in Batman’s first year. Then you recurred to Modern Mythology and Not Being In Continuity, and I recurred to the “Maybe the new films will bring a new shift in comics” and the “Most of the early works with Robin are not in continuity either, and shouldn’t be used by the pro-Robin crowd”.
I would call it a tie, but there’s still the thing about “quality > quantity”, and that makes the whole deal of this debate.
Who knows? Maybe the “origins” and “final years” Batman works are the most famous because they don’t have Robin in it.

Throughout most of TDKR, Carrie Kelly is Batman's only sidekick. It is only toward the end of the story that he begins to work with the former Mutants and Sons of Batman.

Batman spends more time alone than with her, and he will spend even more time training an army. It is, after all, a legacy story, not a side-kick cooperation one. It’s about raising a whole generation of vigilantes, of which Carrie is just the first recruit.

Umm...at the end of TDKR, Bruce has lost Alfred, pissed off half the world, and almost died at the hands of his former friend. He's a shadow of the Batman we know. So you telling me that Carrie Kelly is now one of the few left in charge of carrying that legacy doesn't tell me why that's a bad thing, or how that somehow minimizes her part in Batman's life.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is minimized in the end, very much. And a shadow of the Batman we know? No, he was a shadow at the beginning of TDKR. But at the end he has 1. lost a dear close person, almost a relative 2. at odds with the authorities that cannot accept him 3. experienced a cataclysmic encounter with a tragic figure, who used to be a good person, that almost killed him….

Hmmm, sounds like the end of The Dark Knight. Sounds EXACTLY like the Batman we know.
In The Dark Knight Returns, the end is the most familiar territory, Batman-wise. And that’s why Robin ends so minimized…. Because, with BATMAN, it’s not about side-kick cooperation.

What good can come from that? Well, so far, almost twenty years of fantastic stories about Tim Drake have come from that. Tim Drake is a fantastic character, who actually, if anything, helps to put the "darkness" in Bruce Wayne into sharp relief because of his relative maturity and approach to fighting crime with Batman compared to the previous Robins.

… and the constant torment over his past judgement errors with the previous Robins.
My point is that DC kept the character afloat because they wanted him to stay, not because the odds pointed out that at his origins. The reasons were forced upon us and it requires a MASSIVE suspension of disbelief. Like Dr. Crane once said: “The mind can only take so much.
And Tim Drake’s individual stories don’t count. I’m not arguing about the quality of the character, I’m arguing against his relationship to Bruce.

It was a boy's home.

Then my initial point stands.

He's a circus acrobat with martial arts skills.

He’s a kid who jumps trapezes and had some karate lessons.

Him breaking out is no less realistic than a kid with some skills breaking out of a similar real world facility, which does happen.

Like you said, it was only his home.

And...Batman himself has been committing crimes and playing "Gray areas" for years, about both himself and others he knows. I fail to see how him turning a blind eye to a few of Dick's actions makes it "cheap writing".

He doesn’t turn a “blind eye” for anyone else. No one else. Why is this kid special?

He can take what, exactly?

Ask Oldman’s Gordon, he’s the one who said “He can take IT”.
Seriously, it’s meant to be the pressure of the job. The life risks (not just for himself) and the psychological toll.

Which is the weakness of most versions of the story, sure, I'll admit that. That doesn't mean there isn't a version of the story that is not portrayed as shallow. The reason Bruce has changed his mind about allowing Dick to be his partner has been elaborated on in the mythos, many many times. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is kind of the point. Batman allowing sidekicks is another of the many "gray areas" to the character.

What were those reasons again? I’m still stuck with the bad origins. Especially the ones in BTAS.
I don’t mind Batman having multiple “gray areas” as long as they don’t contradict each other. That’s the point.

The point is not that martial arts is not enough. The point is that there has to be motivation and an edge and discipline to the skills, not just skills.

Bruce spent almost a decade training his body, mind and soul into it. He also had all the resources.
How did Robin prepare himself for the job again? Right, acrobatic skills and martial arts.
The government should consider funding a special squad comprised of circus boys with jitsu lessons. That would be a killer squad.

One would have to think that, if Robin survives for years in the comics, a film version would also be able to show him surviving and make it believable.

Comics Bruce had all the extensive foreign training during many years, and Beings took that.
What are you planning to invent for Robin?

The point is that Bruce didn't have an edge, and that fighting evil is more than just skill.

Exactly. Are we supposed to believe that Robin has that edge?
Maybe Dick now is more skilled than Bruce. Since you’re running out of arguments, I’ll take what you can give me.

...why are you even bringing this up? Of COURSE Robin would have to have some kind of edge to survive life as a Gotham City superhero. That goes without saying, doesn't it?

Oh, fine, I’m totally ok with sending Robin seven years to the Tibet to start learning real Kung-fu and all that jazz. Does the League of Shadows have an age requirement?
Anyway, we’ll be spared of Robin for seven full years.

And as far as fighting, let me point out that TDK showed Batman, who fought off multiple skilled NINJAS in BB, barely being able to take down a few thugs and The Joker. Let's not talk about how wonderfully the Nolan films have portrayed the "realities" of facing brutal killers. The films basically have Batman at the level he needs to be so that he's in danger, but neccessarily not the realistic level for his skillset.

So, your idea for integrating Robin in the series is to PUSH DOWN even further the level of realism when it comes to fighting.
Genius. Keep pushing down until you reach the level where Robin can put a decent fight without being beaten to death by the Joker with a crowbar.

Well, I can't always respond immediately. Because I have:
1. A job
2 A wife
3. Hobbies other than SHH

But, your wish is my command.

I don’t worry, cuz’ I know that it may be difficult, but the temptation to multi-quote is stronger than you.
Stronger than us.
I’m lucky my girlfriend doesn’t live with me, or I wouldn’t have the time either.

The problem was not that Dick couldn't be Robin anymore. Dick had been Robin for years as a young adult. The problem was that Dick didn't want to take orders from a man whose methods he doesn't agree with entirely forever.

Great, Robin keeps bringing troubles and headaches. Damn boy.
And don’t tell me, tell the guy who made the mistake with the phrasing.

I like how you're so sure of why Dick became Nightwing. So, you think it was because they wanted to go back to a Robinless Batman? If they wanted to go back to a Robinless Batman, Melkay, why did writers introduce Jason Todd when they did? Know when the first version of Jason Todd first showed up? 1983. Dick Grayson became Nightwing in 1984. Jason Todd became Robin shortly afterward. What does that tell you? DC knew they needed a Robin. They had one waiting in the wings, and Jason Todd became Robin shortly after Dick became Nightwing.

Exactly what I said before. They tried the position with a new character to work on the shortcomings of the role, to keep it fresh.

Of course, sometimes keeping something fresh means killing the guy and replacing him ONCE AGAIN… but hey, nobody’s perfect.

At least they made the third Robin much more like Grayson… who cares about poor character identity when you can more fan backlash?

Well, I do.

 

[Melkay]

My goodness. You called this a "debate" but all you've been is totally ignorant to others and made this into your own personal shouting match.

You're just being resentful, you were exalted too.

A debate does not need insults, especially such petty ones as yours.

Like I've said before, the bad attitude not only makes for stimulating and dynamic debate, but also serves as a filter: If you cannot stand above the crap and argue only against the arguments instead of the attitude, then you're not arguing for the right reasons. You're letting yourself become too personal, too vulnerable, and it clouds rational thinking. Here you completely disregarded your attempt at discussing because I was "rude" to you, which means that I'd rather argue with someone who is focused at the content and not the the form, who is in this because of what is being said and not the attitudes.

Go ahead then, keep arguing that Robin is a void concept, but all you're achieving is justifying in your own sad little world with you as its population that Robin shouldn't exist.

.... as Batman's side-kick. Shouldn't exist as Batman's side-kick, or their relationship should be radically altered. See? Getting personal it's already clouding your perception.

If you were to rise above my so-called "moronic" arguments you wouldn't have stooped so low as to offend me and others.

I'm not interesed to rise above your level. I don't have a problem with getting at people's levels, even lower. I have a problem with bad arguments, and whenever I see a bad concept disguised as argument only to advance a flawed point, I will use counter-argumentation AND bad attitude. I don't have the time to sort out all the responses and I can't choose who I'm going to reply to, so I use the filter.
Besides, rising above people's levels is elitist, petulant and it is a debate killer. I never get offended when people call me stupid, but when others are stupid, or just don't think their answers well. That's why I won't rise above that. If people get offended easily or not is just not relevant to the discussion. And that's all I care about... as opposed to you, who decided to quote only the insult part.

That's ok. I know now what to expect from you.

Instead you have merely proven yourself to be an ignorant person who would rather trade insults thinly veiled as arguments than provide good reasoning and logic to your debate.

Ignorant person?
Insults veiled as arguments?

Why not regular person passing logic arguments disguised as sarcastic mockery?

But why do I ask you? Your judgement is impaired now.

I would continue, but that would bring me all the way down to your level. Instead I simply bid you goodbye for now, and look forward to your current argument to continually be squashed while you retreat into your confined little circle of misinformed belief.

I would have had a better and more prolongued discussion with you, but there are too many of you and your initial argument wasn't any good. Either I had to have some faith and expect an improvement on your part, or I had to take you out.

I'm glad that 5 little letters could do the trick.

Yes the characters have real motivations but what makes you think that Robin's or rather Nightwing's character could NOT have any real motivations.

I'm not saying Robin or Nightwing have poor motivations, but Batman has, for taking Robin under his wing.
Good, at least you demonstrated you weren't familiar with the history of the debate.
Catch up then, I'll see you later.

 

[Melkay]

Bruce didn't like the Batmen because they were shooting people and basically screwing his reputation and twisting what it is that he stands for.

Of course, Robin would be better than this guys, but would he be skillful enough? Batman needed all his preparation, but what about this kid?

A not-so-skillful vigilante can jeopardize not only his own life but the lives of others as well, criminals or innocent civilians.

Now, I agree with you that Batman 3 is not time for Robin, because of where the story is at. But that doesn't mean that it can't happen on down the line. The whole point of Robin is that he's a reflection of Batman and he gives writers an opportunity to explore Batman's character a little more deeply by showing us another side of him.

The problem is if that other side of him is congruent with the big picture, with the whole personality. Most of Robins origins show a Batman that contradicts his own principles. As me and The Guard agreed, most of this stories present a Batman that goes from "not accepting Robin" directly to "accepting Robin". And I'm questioning the psychological and objective reasons behind that decision.

If the boy is probably going to endanger his and others lives and be an obstacle in his early missions, why take him in?
If the kid can be put away in some reformatory, why go through all the trouble of making him Robin?
If he takes him in the end, why not do the same with every young orphaned boy with some skills?
If Batman wants to keep that kind of kids out of trouble, why not buy an orphanage and improve its system?
If Batman is in need for a vigilante partner, why not recruit an adult who actually has what it takes?

That and some other doubts prevent me from believing in the premise of a "wonder boy side-kick". It's too hard.

Here's another flaw. You said you can see Bruce training somebody to take his place but you can't see him putting the kid in harm's way. Then how's he going to train him? Give him an inflatable Joker bop bag and a juice box?

Oh, is he going to send Robin to the Tibet for seven years to learn real Kung-fu, ninja skills, mind stability and all that jazz? Does the League of Shadows have an age requirement? At least we’ll be spared of Robin for seven full years.

I guess you people think that Bruce over-trained himself, that you can be ready for fighting crime in Gotham after a little crash course.

Is it outside of Batman's character to put a child in danger to help with his fight?

Given how much he values human life to even save the life of his arch-nemesis, yeah. A BIG Yeah.

Only if you lack imagination. Robin IS young Bruce, for all intents and purposes. In the comics, Bruce started his training as a boy. And he had to travel the world to learn all the skills he needed. Now he, himself, can teach all of those skills to Robin.

Only if you lack logic. Let's say that Bruce reached that level of empathy with the boy (a boy who annoys and disobey him, but whatever)... and let's say we forget about the gigantic amount of training Bruce had that Dick would never get... tell me...

... Where is Bruce going to find the time to train this problematic pre-adolescent boy if he doesn't even have time to sleep?
I just hope he doesn't leave the coach gig to Alfred.

If Dick Grayson is hell-bent on doing what Bruce did, what better master could have than Batman?

Hmmm, the head of The League Of Shadows, in a some far asian retreat, I guess. Or no master at all, who cares if this Dick is hell-bent on doing something? Batman has to put away criminals all the time. Sadly, this kid shouldn't be the exception.

Where would Bruce feel that Dick was safest? By Bruce's side, learning to be the ultimate badass, or sneaking out into the night on his own, a boy with a lot of anger in his belly and the desire to get even, but no skills with which to protect himself?

That... is.... THE.... ultimate.... example of.... delusion.

Not only you have completely ignored every logic argument about the inherent shortcomings and dangers of such training.... but you have also implied that Batman should take under his wing every boy or girl with a profound anger and desire of getting back at someone.

Unbelievable.

Keeping Dick in the reformatory is where he is safest. No doubt. Bruce may resent doing it, but at least it would be coherent with the character. I cannot believe that he would get softened by such a ridiculous scenario. We're talking about the GODDAMN BATMAN here. He doesn't concede to anything, especially not to the whims and tantrums of an out of control kid.

 

[El Payaso]

When executed competently, absolutely. Or did you not notice that dressing up as a bat is ridiculous?

That's the magical solution. Theoretically speaking everything done "competently" should be good. Then you have to ask yourself, is this necessary. It's not all about being done competently but if it's necessary to even do it.

All that is required is for him to demonstrate that such irresponsibility is behind him. Also, getting drunk at a party does not make one an alcoholic. Moreover, inappropriate people manage to adopt all the time. In any case, I can forgive such an incongruity in the same way that I forgive the other incongruities that have appeared in the films.

A lot of forgiveness is basic to allow to buy Robin's presence in the franchise, that's for sure.

Is this supposed to be a counterargument?

Just to let you know that "Batman is about being human" is something you can apply to practically every human character. It doesn't say anything particualr about Batman and certainly doesn't necessarily include fatherhood.

I didn't say it was about having a normal life, I said Batman was about being human. This is expressed in an abnormal and extreme way because that makes for interesting fiction. Yes, "humaness" is a broad subject, and so some human conflicts are more important to the character than others. The primary conflict is the question of the price of fighting evil--or, more simply, do the ends justify the means. Other facets of the human condition important to Batman mythology are family and legacy, and that is where Robin comes in.

Fatherhood might be important for humans. But in Batman's particualr case is not fundamental. You can have a whole Batman history without fatherhood.

Legacy? That might be interesting. We're talking about an old Batman that foresees he needs a replacement. He did it in TDK with Harvey Dent; now that sounds convincing opposite toi a 12 years old kid who's supposed to be as skillfull as him.

This, too, is no counterargument. Saying "If Batman was about fatherhood, he would have been a cop with kids!" is absolutely meaningless. As I said: the themes do not have to be illustrated in conventional ways in order to be present. There are expressed in extreme, unconventional ways because that makes for interesting fiction. This includes an ideal, such as Batman, giving way to another ideal, such as Robin, as a means of examining legacy, succession, and yes, fatherhood.

Extreme and unconventional don't equal interesting necessarily.

Batman wants to be a papa? He can retire and start a family. Thinks that exposing a life of a minor is an ideal? Unbuyable. Batman himself needed to be far older than 12 in order to start fighting crime. And certyainly he doesn't have time to pretend being a playboy, be the head of Wayne enterprises, being Batman and then a valuable father. Oh, and a personal trainer. Something's gotta give. Fatherhood is not for him.

Superman is often used to illustrate contrast, but far more rarely as a catalyst. Robin as always been a catalyst for change within the Batman mythology, and his function is of far greater importance.

Nevertheless nobody is going to use Superman in the Batman franchise no matter how important he could be in Batman's life.

Many things of Batman's comics history won't be used; they're obviously going for the essential. Robin is a narrative device that's not considered necessary for the big screen. History of bat-movies has proven so.

 

[COMPO]

Right. So, why hasn't time passed for Batman? Or time passes selectively?
Or better yet... are you aware of a concept called "writer's intentions"?

Things don't happen in fiction 'just because', naturally. They happen because it's convenient for the writers. In that case, it was convenient for them to remove the character but leave the role, so they could go back at it with a new character, to try to work the inherent flaws.

Yes but it worked out ok and was good story telling. I mean most of Batman's characters have been removed look at Alfred, yet he was brought back and so was Robin. kids love robin, DC could see that, that's why they brought him back the only reason they killed jason was because he didnt gel with the kids.

Basically, they failed with Todd in a different way they failed with Dick. Dick has been exploited for too many years and it was getting monotone, and the concept wasn't too god to hold itself, not like Batman. And Todd was killed because he was an unpopular replacement.
And Tim endures... In an intermittent state, bein in some stories, and mostly or totally absent in others, because that kid's got a life, right? Hanging on with the Teen Titans from time to time?

They can either keep it hanging on, leaving it out of most of the important renditions of the character (the Nolan films) and maybe he'll live.... or maybe he'll be removed like he predecessors if the public starts to dislike the idea of Robin once again. It's a binary thing.
Nolan it's surely tipping the scale towards the 'not liking Robin' case. Sadly, that's how pop culture works. Maybe he should get a medal for it.

They can do that with Robin in the movies I mean not all Batman comics involve Robin some of them have him alone, and that was the case in the 70's which is what Nolan draws influence on, so he may take elements of that story telling into the movie with robin being side-lined some nights so Batman can do things alone, when ie. one man job or its too dangerous.

And Robin remains the role who has 'grown out of itself' more times than any other... basically stealing the show in every origin and exit, becoming even more dynamic than the TITLE CHARACTER.
Call me a Batman Supremacist if you want.

how does he steal the spotlight? :S

Or because pop culture comics aren't ready to ignore/erase/rewrite decades of the presence of one character. It's a lot from you to assume that the reason is completely pertinent to the character dynamic. I can give you that the relationship is dynamic, compelling, sometimes even exhilarating... but I believe it's harmful for the characterization of Batman.

how is it harming to the batman character? it expands him more as a character, I mean yeah he's a loner but he's a loner that gets lonely why do you think he keeps getting new partners and sidekicks.

 

[Melkay]

Yes but it worked out ok and was good story telling. I mean most of Batman's characters have been removed look at Alfred, yet he was brought back and so was Robin. kids love robin, DC could see that, that's why they brought him back the only reason they killed jason was because he didnt gel with the kids.

I get that. I really do. It's serialized pop culture, and they must put market ahead of narrative, I get it. It's supposed to have flaws, and as any Alan Moore fan, I'm usually overly demanding when it comes to comics. I get it.
But we are talking about the sequel to a very acclaimed film aimed mostly at adults. The same dynamics are not in progress here. I'm happy with a Robin in The Batman tv show to please the kids, but we're grown-ups here, giving too much importance and relevance, based on longevity, to a character dynamic that is set by what kids liked or not at a certain moment.
Right for the some of comics, right for the works aimed at youngsters, wrong for adult and serious live-action films.

They can do that with Robin in the movies I mean not all Batman comics involve Robin some of them have him alone, and that was the case in the 70's which is what Nolan draws influence on, so he may take elements of that story telling into the movie with robin being side-lined some nights so Batman can do things alone, when ie. one man job or its too dangerous.

In a storyline where Batman is severly limited to train ANYONE, you would have a new kid ramping around on his own, having his own solo scenes, stealing precious screen time from the TITLE character?
You really hate Batman, don't you?
...

how does he steal the spotlight? :S

Wow, this again... well, where do I start?

Not only we have the problems stated in quote two ^, but many others.

...He's younger, more dynamic, more relatable to younger audiences;
...in his origin stories he always have the initiave, it's always about if Batman takes him under his wing or not and Dick's efforts to get that;
...in those same origins Batman ends up becoming an enabler, and allower, and Robin get his victory;
...in some of the most famous works where Robin is present is mostly about his struggles: like becoming Nightwing, or fighting to get his girlfriend back in Dini's SUB ZERO storyline...
...... and that's only from the top of my head. How many more reasons do you want?

After things like those, I don't wonder why he has pushed so many times to solo stories, or working in different teams (Teen Titans). Apart from origin story Dark Victory, or the War Zones storyline, the other most prominent graphic novel that had the Robins in it (Hush) has them quite at the end and they're poorly developed. And I've already stated my views on TDKR's Robin... is not meant to be a side-kick, but the first recruitment of a new generation army. It's not cooperation, it's legacy. Hence, not really Robin.

how is it harming to the batman character? it expands him more as a character, I mean yeah he's a loner but he's a loner that gets lonely why do you think he keeps getting new partners and sidekicks.

By that logic, a more natural step for Batman would be to get an adult female partner, wouldn't he? If he feels lonely, and wants to exercise fatherly roles, he gets a son.... but why not getting wife first? A vigilante woman who works with him.

Fighting Batman's solitude is not the primary reason for having Robin, never has been. It's cheap executive decision aimed that many times feel forced and contrived within the narrative. I say it's harmful for the character of Bruce because in taking Robin he violates many of his rules... the most important being: preservation of human life. People here say that Batman cannot work alone, but I'm sure he would rather risk hiw own life instead of endangering other people's life, even the criminals. The why have a not-so-skilled partially reckless boy who can get himself or other people hurt while fighting crime? And why would Batman do that to channel Dick's rage if he has been so good at discouraging other forms of vigilantism that are not his? (the copycats).

Like I said, Robin's premise, at least when it comes to Batman's relationship with him, has MANY holes. And those holes are more exposed than ever in a serious live action film.

So, Nolan... don't add Robin.

 

[The Batman]

And doesn't that tell you anything? Anything at all about the Robin concept?



Here goes another clue. Get it?



The worst I can say about him is that he's harmful for Batman as a character.
Oh, and that his relationship to Bats has always had a cheap premise that got worst after the replacements started.



Wow... when the definitions come from negation of the other, things go bad...

In fact, I would argue that Drake is the less defined Robin of the series, having too many similarities to the early years Dick.



My dad used to tell me that you shouldn't kick him anyone when you have him one the floor.

Not only you chickened out from truly discussing Batman's motivations to have Dick in...
... but you also made a clumsy effort of calling us ignorants, saying that "the reason is there and you should see it"...
... while confortably ignoring the history of the debate and realizing that those points you mention have mostly been meres "Robin has been too many years around so he's ESSENTIAL" and "I won't even acknowledge all your counter-arguments.

Basically, you missed your opportunity of not typing a word.

But my daddy used to tell me not to kick people on the floor.
It's rude.

I missed my opportunity because frankly, i dont give a damn about you...sorry, but there it is...i dont get giddy typing essays about an opinion which no will give a damn about when the discussions over. You can use your biased, illogical arguments all you want, but at the end of the day, the person your arguing with STILL WONT AGREE WITH YOU...which is why I assume you're arguing....because if its merely to impress people online, then thats just sad. Dick got replaced because he didnt fit the concept....that does not mean that the concept dosent work. Jason Todd got replaced because people hated Jason Todd...not the concept of Robin, because if that were true, Tim Drake wouldnt be as popular as he is today. There's the clue for you...get it? Of course you wont

 

[Melkay]

I missed my opportunity because frankly, i dont give a damn about you...sorry, but there it is...i dont get giddy typing essays about an opinion which no will give a damn about when the discussions over. You can use your biased, illogical arguments all you want, but at the end of the day, the person your arguing with STILL WONT AGREE WITH YOU...which is why I assume you're arguing....because if its merely to impress people online, then thats just sad. Dick got replaced because he didnt fit the concept....that does not mean that the concept dosent work. Jason Todd got replaced because people hated Jason Todd...not the concept of Robin, because if that were true, Tim Drake wouldnt be as popular as he is today. There's the clue for you...get it? Of course you wont

I like you too, darling

Sorry if you're so pessimist to think that all people are helplessly stubborn. You'll gladly realize that's not the case, as you get older.

When you're lest hurt, try actually looking at the history of the debate. Every point of you about every Robin.... countered already.

At least you admitted that Dick "didn't fit the concept". I can live with that.

 

[The Batman]

I like you too, darling

Sorry if you're so pessimist to think that all people are helplessly stubborn. You'll gladly realize that's not the case, as you get older.

When you're lest hurt, try actually looking at the history of the debate. Every point of you about every Robin.... countered already.

At least you admitted that Dick "didn't fit the concept". I can live with that.

1. Fanboys are indeed helplessly stubborn...that includes you...ESPECIALLY you. There's arguing over things that actually matter, and then there's arguing on a message board, where no opinions will ultimately end up changing. you honestly think you'll change the minds of guys like Saint and The Guard, who're actually smarter posters than you'll ever be? Ha....Ha...hahahahahaha...

2. You're still assuming that I somehow care about you enough to go back pages upon pages to see an endless cycle of you disproving points while other people disprove yours....oh, I'm sorry, i'm supposed to assume you're actually "winning" an online debate...I'm sure you want a cookie, too.

3. I like how you somehow think that since robin has become more a concept than a person, it somehow makes it irelevent to the Batman mythos. Not to mention that if nolan does use robin, like most versions of the character he'll only use one...

 

[Saint]

Right. So, why hasn't time passed for Batman? Or time passes selectively?

Actually, yes. Time does pass selectively. Aging a character like Batman comes with the baggage of moving him closer to the end of his story, which publishers are hesitant to do. Aging a character like Dick Grayson (Or Wally West) to adult hood is not complicated by such difficulties, and instead moves the character closer to what one might consider the apex of his story.

Or better yet... are you aware of a concept called "writer's intentions"?

Certainly. In fact, I have been attempting to illuminate that subject for you.

Things don't happen in fiction 'just because', naturally. They happen because it's convenient for the writers.

Not because it's convenient, no. Because it's interesting, Writing something because it's convenient In that case, it was convenient for them to remove the character but leave the role, so they could go back at it with a new character, to try to work the inherent flaws.[/quote]
Incorrect. Writing (good writing, anyway) does not conform to what is convenient. What is written is written because it is interesting. Somebody thought it was interesting to take on a coming-of-age story with Dick Grayson, so he became Nightwing. Somebody thought it was interesting to make an inversion of Dick Grayson the new Robin, so we got Jason Todd. Somebody thought it was interesting to create a more cerebral Robin, so we got Tim Drake. Again, this says nothing about the quality of the concept--merely that different people have different idea about how to make it interesting. This is universally true of every single concept in the Batman mythology.

Basically, they failed with Todd in a different way they failed with Dick.

The only failure with Todd was deciding his fate based on what the fans wanted. There's an Alan Moore quote in somebody's signature around here that says that if the audience knew what was best, they wouldn't be the audience, they'd be the artist.

If they were going to kill him, it should have been for creative reasons, and the same is true if they had opted to keep him alive. Either route would have worked just fine. Instead, though, they forgot that the distinction between audience and artist exists for a reason. Fortunately. the mistake was salvaged and everything worked out fine.

Dick has been exploited for too many years and it was getting monotone, and the concept wasn't too god to hold itself, not like Batman.

Don't be ridiculous: Batman gets stale all the time. This is why he's reinvented every ten years, like clockwork. The only difference with Robin is that the reinventions have sometimes involved someone new under the mask. You have still failed to make any sort of compelling argument as to how the evolution of Robin demonstrates anything about the quality of the concept or the characters working under it.

And Todd was killed because he was an unpopular replacement.

So? This says nothing about the quality of Robin. It also says nothing about the quality of Jason Todd, because people are stupid and hate awesome things all the time.

And Tim endures... In an intermittent state,

Except not intermittent at all. He has been published in his own monthly book for fifteen plus years, in addition to being a staple of the main Bat books.

Furthermore, this argument is ridiculous, anyway. A character doesn't have to appear in every story to be good. Gordon doesn't. Hell, Gordon appears a hell of a lot less frequently than Robin does.

And Robin remains the role who has 'grown out of itself' more times than any other... basically stealing the show in every origin and exit, becoming even more dynamic than the TITLE CHARACTER.

Supporting character often evolve faster and more frequently, in my observation, than the main character--by necessary consequence of the fact that, should your main character move too quickly, you find that you've reached the end of his story, and your book is over. Supporting characters are not inhibited as such.

Are you kidding? Drake is almost like a younger, happier and more hyperkinetic Dick Grayson.

No, he is not. At all. This is a startling misconception. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I would advise you to actual go out and purchase a comic book featuring Tim Drake. I suggest Geoff Johns Teen Titans run.

Batman treats him the same.

Again, not at all. It would save me some effort if you would read some comics before attempt to argue with me about their content.

Or because pop culture comics aren't ready to ignore/erase/rewrite decades of the presence of one character.

Sure they are. Or have you never heard of Crisis on Infinite Earths?

As I said above... ********. It was about renewing a dampened relationship dynamic, but without altering too much the status quo, just in case. It was about "this is not working anymore, so we have to change, but not too much... we'll change this Robin... for another one."

Sure. This doesn't preclude anything I said from being true, nor does it say anything about the quality of Robin. All you have done is stumble upon the inherent flaw in ongoing comics, which is that they are prone to stagnation by virtue of the fact that they must continue indefinitely--and, accordingly, things have to be shaken up from time to time.

but also is not relatable to anything we commonly know.

We don't know fathers and sons? We don't know apprenticeship?

With that, motives have to be very carefully balanced, and the next step for Batman can't just be "I need another partner. A young boy... preferably, because it reminds me of Dick and Todd."

How fortunate, then, that this never happened.

No, he doesn't. With Gordon, they can always go back to the place they were. With Dick, he won't be Robin anymore. And sometimes, Batman's in his way. And they fight.
For Gordon, it is much more stable than that. For Robin, it's not the same role anymore. He's not Batman's son anymore. He's just someone in the same line of work, with a past with Bruce.

He's not Batman's son any more? What? You really don't actually read the comics, do you? You don't seem equipped to be having this argument. What's more, you don't seem able to demonstrate why Robin changing is bad, and why Gordon staying the same is good.

And to fill that 'Robin void', they brought a "lighter" Dick. Crappy.

No, not ever. Neither Todd nor Tim was "lighter" than Grayson. The opposite is true. Again, I am alarmed at this baffling misconception.

Except that with the Batman thing, they actually succeeded at making valid reasons and sound motivation for it.

And so they have with Robin. I have already explained these. You have offered no compelling counterargument.

I decided to skip the rest of your post, because it didn't present any sort of actual argument--just the repetition of your premise.

 

[Saint]

That's the magical solution. Theoretically speaking everything done "competently" should be good. Then you have to ask yourself, is this necessary. It's not all about being done competently but if it's necessary to even do it.

Nothing is "necessary" in fiction except for what the writer makes necessary. That's part of the competency I described; making things you want in your story have consequence and necessity.

A lot of forgiveness is basic to allow to buy Robin's presence in the franchise, that's for sure.

No more than what is necessary for Batpersons and Clark Kent's glasses.

Just to let you know that "Batman is about being human" is something you can apply to practically every human character.

Sure. If you've read any of my arguments before, you know the next thing I type will be "But everything is about degrees." Batman is about humanity in a different way than Superman is humanity. One is about human ideals and the other is about human struggles. Yes, this is still broad. Inevitable, considering the amount of material, but we can still make determinations about the broad strokes present in the mythology.

It doesn't say anything particualr about Batman and certainly doesn't necessarily include fatherhood.

Fatherhood might be important for humans. But in Batman's particualr case is not fundamental. You can have a whole Batman history without fatherhood.

If you wanted him to be a different character, absolutely. I explained above how necessity works. Batman has been designed in such a way that fatherhood is integral to who the character is. Remove it, and you've cut out one of the most siginificant parts of his development as a character. Perhaps the most significant.

Extreme and unconventional don't equal interesting necessarily.

I didn't say they did, but they do in this instance.

Batman wants to be a papa?

What he wants actually isn't the relevant issue at all.

He can retire and start a family.

Or he can do what he's done since 1941.

Thinks that exposing a life of a minor is an ideal?

Of course it's not ideal. It would be boring if it was.

And certyainly he doesn't have time to pretend being a playboy, be the head of Wayne enterprises, being Batman and then a valuable father. Oh, and a personal trainer. Something's gotta give. Fatherhood is not for him.

So what you're saying is that it's not realistic? Heh.

 

[:-}]

didnt nolan says there would be no robin?

 

[:-}]

didnt nolan says there would be no robin?

 

[itsthebatman]

I love being on the same side as Saint. It means I can just sit back and watch the pwnage.
*opens bottle of wine, puts feet up*

 

[Two-Face]

didnt nolan says there would be no robin?

Yes he did.

BB & TDK are proof of it and Batman 3 won't have either.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Yes he did.

BB & TDK are proof of it and Batman 3 won't have either.

That's terrible logic... Batman 3 may very well at least have a reference. As to having Robin at all, I highly doubt it, but saying that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn't have Robin, so Batman 3 won't would just be a badly based assumption.

You never know with Nolan. He's pulled twists and turns out of his ass and made them work like charms. There's a good chance Nolan will throw a twist in there and include some reference, at least.

 

[Two-Face]

That's terrible logic... Batman 3 may very well at least have a reference. As to having Robin at all, I highly doubt it, but saying that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn't have Robin, so Batman 3 won't would just be a badly based assumption.

You never know with Nolan. He's pulled twists and turns out of his ass and made them work like charms. There's a good chance Nolan will throw a twist in there and include some reference, at least.

I see you in 2011 then....

 

[regwec]

This thread is becoming more or less unreadable to those of us who are tired whenever we visit these pages, but I can at least retire comfortably in the knowledge that Saint and Guard have schooled Milky thoroughly.

I'm not sure if this has been touched upon in any of the impressively long posts above, but could the fostering of Dick by Bruce provide a convenient alibi for the cessation from the rampant "playboyism" which Bruce is otherwise obliged to pursue?