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

[Brock]

"Batman: I’m working on a case. If you want to stay, I won’t stop you.
Nightwing: The warmth is overwhelming.
Batman: Inopportune.
Nightwing: Good god, he made a joke.
Batman: Shut up.”
Father and son, right?

Dick has always wanted to be his own man and not just stuck in Bruce's shadow. They had a time where they were barely on speaking terms, but Bruce will always look out for him. He views him as a son figure and Dick, while he does joke around and taunt Bruce, he was given a life by him and was raised during a very crucial point in his life. It's a eccentric father son relationship. This is, in no way, a married couple. We can save that for Batman and Superman.

 

[El Payaso]

uh....by the way...in the comics...isnt commissioner gordon on his third run as commissioner, after leaving the position at lease didnt twice, and retiring another? In fact, wasnt there a six year stretch where gordon barely appeared? Isnt alfred on his fourth run as bruces butler, after quitting twice and being assumed dead once?

And, believe me, that's a bunch of ideas, just like Robin, that might have been in comics but that won't be in any of Nolan's movies.

This is what infuriates me: These points have been explained in the comics and animated series so well, Robin has been around 99.9% of the time Batman has been around, yet he is a bad character? Yet 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.

Being there most of time doesn't make it a good idea.

What works in comics doesn't necessarily work on the big screen.

Most of this argument makes zero sense. Observe:



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. Batman doesn't mind people standing up for what's right but I don't think he likes it when they use methods he doesn't believe in and do things that can potentially make him look bad.

Batman doesn't believe in guns. Does that mean Batman doesn't like the police?

Plus many of Batman's own actions, like crushing police cars with cops in them with his Tumbler or firing guns inside of a mall center with people in it, do porecisely make him look bad. But sometimes he had to do it.

As stated in TDK, Batman's ideal inspiration on people is what ahppened with Harvey Dent; people doing the right thing beyond duty, people not being afraid of gangsters, not people literally putting masks and capes.

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.

Same with many other characters in comics or that doesn't exist in comics and that, for now, are being prefered over Robin for those functions.

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?

Exactly like he did himself. He wasn't an underage when he was finally ready to fight crime. It took years and years.

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

It definitively should be.

Only if you lack imagination. Robin IS young Bruce, for all intents and purposes.

Then he should also be 20 something in order to be ready to go out and fight crime.

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.

Teaching those skills is not a matter of infgormation transfer only. It requires years of training as bruce himself knows. Bruce also had excellent mentores but he wasn't ready after 2 years of training.

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

If that applies to Robin, it should apply to every orphan/kid wanting revenge. Back again to Batman's need to open a Training Academy for Determined Kids.

 

[spiderfan970]

How about this? I don't think that Robin should appear, but I'd be fine with Dick Grayson appearing. Dick could represent Batman's redemption or something. Or they could hint at it at the end, Alfred gives Bruce tickets to go to the circus.

 

[Saint]

But it is what I said, and by retirement I meant retirement from the Robin role. When Dick went to be Nightwing he didn't appear as much as the new Robin, or did he? Reaching his prime is also taking some steps back.

...What?

Weren't you the one who wrote this?

Sure. And then I went on to explain how the reason he grew up is because somebody thought a coming-of-age story made sense and would be interesting for Dick Grayson. Neither of my comments are mutually exclusive.

Can you tell me why would Dick have to be a solo vigilante if the writers hadn't wrote in frictions between him and Bruce? Lacking this, wouldn't have he become an adult Robin? There shouldn't be any problem with Robin being an adult... or not?

Don't be ridiculous: they "wrote in friction" because that is the human condition. There is no such thing as a relationship without friction. They wrote about what has been happening between fathers and sons for millions of years. There is always turbulence when the son becomes his own man. In this instance, it made sense for that conflict to manifest as a new, independent identity for Dick.

Dick abandoned Bruce because he grew older and he couldn't work with Batman anymore... and that's not a coming of age story, unless you think the role is so restrictive that it can't have an older Robin.

Uh, yes, it is a coming of age story--because Dick's inability to work under Bruce any longer was the result of his coming of age. This is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. Part of a coming of age story is becoming independent. Moving out of your fathers house. That's what Dick did by becoming Nightwing.

And I must remind you that you also felt DC took Jason Todd out for the wrong reasons.

So? That Todd was killed for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that Dick grew up for the wrong reasons.

In such serialized products, no they don't.

Ha!

Good writers still have to remain in continuity and carry on with the mediocre choices from lesser authors,

Actually, good writers make the mediocre choices of their predecessors work. That's part of the art of comics. Go take a look at Geoff Johns.That's practically his official position at DC Comics.

I did read it, but you were the one who deviated the subject. When I began this I started talking about narrative quality. Then you mentioned that it was "interesting", which had nothing to do with the subject.

What's interesting has nothing to do with narrative quality? Excuse me?

Mamma mia, and you're the one ranting about different opinions and perspectives. Good for you. Yes, I believe Tim was a return to a more familiar kind of character

Yes, he was. But that's not what you said. You said he is "lighter," than Dick Grayson which is simply not true. At all.

No... I have said many times that Robins is very well developed character, and I don't have any complaints about the quality of Robin

Of course you do. You continue to describe the concept as weak and flawed. That is a quality complaint.

And one cannot separate bad premise from bad writing...

This is ridiculous. Of course one can do that.

Which are the moments from Bats & Robin relationship that bought you? The one that had you convinced?

There are others, but one, in particular, comes to mind.

Before anyone responds with "That is so gay," I'll advise you to save your keystrokes. I'm not interesting in juvenile stupidity.

But it'se there in that business thinking that the creative process gets jammed... they wanted to do both things, advance Dick's status andalso keep Robin, and they did, but their bargain didn't go well and they ended up killing Todd, only to replace him later with Tim Drake... and that's all fine in paper...

Actually, it worked out just fine. It was turbulent, sure, but out of the turbulence we got Nightwing, the legacy of Jason Todd--and eventually the Red Hood, who is wonderful in the correct hands (so far, only Judd Winnick and Geoff Johns)--and Tim Drake, who has become an excellent character and an indispensable component of modern Batman.

... but what about explaining Batman's motivation to do this? Not only he had to let the first Robin go, but the second one died... and even partnering with Dick was crazy the first time, looking at the inherent obstacles and dangers of the job. Then WHY if he got awful results, with pains that were so recent, he goes AGAIN through the same motions?

That's sort of like asking why Bruce wears a batcostume. If the reasoning was absolutely sound, it would happen in the real world. I can give you reasons--and you probably know what they are--and they function, but they only function insofar as you are willing to accept that this world is fictional.

I get that the market is a determining factor. What I don't get is that it's the PRIMARY factor

I don't believe that it is. Perhaps think of it this way: the exectuive may decide what path to take, but because he is not an artist, he can only choose from the art he is provided with--by the artists. DC probably said two years ago "We're going to shake up Batman." But what did they have until Grant Morrison came along an thought up RIP? Do you suppose their plan was anything like RIP At all? Or consider Marvel's creative summits. The creators get together and dream up what to do with the entire universe. Killing Captain America, for example, wasn't some ridiculous marketing directive. It grew organically out of Civil War, through one of these creative summits.

No, it was important to Batman's mythology.

It was important to both.

Batman's work all too well without having Robin around,

Sure, and we works 'all to well" without Gordon or Alfred around. This does not preclude those characters from being important to Batman's character. The same is true of Robin.

but Robin was too big of a trademark name. Want a real character dynamic? Allow the character to change within the role, allow him to grow... instead of substituting him more than three times.

Why? It worked fine having their name changes be a part of their growth.

The art is sound?? Are you listening to yourself? Wasn't Guard who said that it was really a shame that most writers couldn't get around Batman 'sudden' acceptance of Robin? Wasn't you who admitted that bad writing always happens? Who says the art is sound, you?

You seem to be imagining that I said "The art is always sound." Please be more careful. I use the words I do for a reason.

If he appeared in the majority of issues, I would get it. But he doesn't.

Have you checked? I'd be interested to see the numbers on this. My low estimate would be fifty-percent, but I personally suspect the percentage of Robin appearances to be higher. The bulk of my comics are from 1992 and onward, and even when I was a kid only picking up whatever random issues appeared in front of me, I bought a lot of Batman. Accordingly I have a fair sampling of the major "eras" since then. Most of these featured Robin as a staple, and those that did not featured him with regularity similar to that of Gordon.

No, wrong, the concept doesn't work without the inter-character dynamic.

Right. But that doesn't make what I said wrong. At all. The concept is still important. I'm not sure how your comment is supposed to refute that.

I have mentioned Teen Titans many times already, and you seem to be avoiding what I've been saying to you multiple times: "It's not about Robin's individual characterization, but about his relationship to Batman and what that says about Bruce, and Bruce alone".

My suggestion to read Teen Titans is not about the relationship between Bruce and Tim, but rather an effort to correct your fundamental misconception that Tim is "lighter" than Dick Grayson.

I'm not crying foul here, BUT.... Don't be a cheap debater, read the whole sentence. It was about endangering one's child, something that came at the end of the sentence.

I read it. I just didn't consider it worthy of response. Simply put, these kids were putting themselves in danger. Batman was doing what he could to keep them alive. I've talked about Batman decision making here before. Yes, it's insane. So is putting on a batcostume.

Is Batman about aberrated parenthood?

In that way? I don't know. Would it surprise you? Everything in Batman's life is an aberration.

Father and son, right?

Uh, yes, I banter with my father all the time. Banter that is actually alarmingly similar to that. I can't imagine how you'd think bantering precludes their relationship from being that of a father and son.

Peers who know each other too much, know how to irritate each other, are constantly picking about the other… all things that CAN happen in a father/son relationship, but are much more akin to the stereotype of the “divorced couple”.

Why? Fathers and sons don't know each other too much? Don't know how to irritate each other? Are not constantly picking about the other? This sounds exactly like a father and son relationship, once the son has earned the right. This sounds exactly like my relationship with my father.

I will let you to provide a link to your “counter-arguments” and then we’ll see what you’re talking about.

I don't need to link anything. Nearly every time I quote one of your comments, it is to provide a counterargument.

EDIT: Oh, and Saint... look at your signature now. Are you looking? Who's your God? What is the name of your god? And what does your god plans to do about Robin? What?
There you go.

That I praise Nolan's work on these films overall does not mean I universally agree with his decisions.

 

[Saint]

And...five.

1. Harvey Dent
2. Azrael
3. Catwoman
4. Anarky
5. Ra's and Talia Al Ghul
6. Bronze Tiger
7. Zatanna and the JLA
8. Hal Jordan
9. The Riddler
10. The Penguin

Among others. There are other characters whose actions Batman has turned a blind eye to on some level over the years. People whose past transgressions he had forgiven, people whose crimes he has ignored to ally himself with them. Batman has seen people do bad things and then helped them or not condemned or jailed them several times. In fact, he's worked with many of them. Azrael, in particular was a trained assassin...and Batman decided that it was ok to make him into the new Batman. Hal Jordan almost destroyed the Universe. The Riddler and Penguin have been Batman foes for years.

Let's not forget Bane--a merciless killer who Batman allowed to go free after Bane's Lazarus Pit epiphany.

 

[StorminNorman]

I have thoroughly enjoyed The Guard's thrashing of Melkay

 

[The Sage]

I have thoroughly enjoyed The Guard's thrashing of Melkay

I second that, as well as Saint's excellent counterargument.

 

[The Joker]

Saint and The Guard, you guys are laying down the pwnage!!!

Amazing posts

 

[I Am The Knight]

I have thoroughly enjoyed The Guard's thrashing of Melkay

Me as well, and I haven't even read it yet!

 

[Melkay]

See, the problem is that you said this earlier:

With him, Batman is letting another boy commit what he deems as a curse and a mistake, entering a life that has no light at the end of the tunnel

And when you say something, I assume that you mean it.

My boy, I was paraphrasing the pro-Robin crowd when they said Robin wasn't always around because "he had a life". Only problem being, as you pointed out, that they don't...

Drake's father was murdered, his love was tortured and apparently killed (although she turned out to be alive), he's lost friends, allies, etc, etc, etc. And Dick's been through hell lately.

So I have nothing else to say.

So when you try to use words like "curse and a mistake" and "no light at the end of the tunnel" as an explanation for how Batman feels about his own mission

Are you trying to tell me that he doesn't think it's a burden? Are you actually saying that's a life he thinks others would envy and desire?
Do you want me to actually post quotes from the comics that point to the opposite?

And are you really whining about the "convenience" of them surviving because they're main characters?

Not at all... I'm talking about the inconvenience of them dying when executives don't feel confortable about fans reactions. Ask Jason Todd.
Which points out the obvious... they're not main characters. Batman is. Batman is the only one that cannot die. Many characterizations of Batman (the bat-prick, especially) have been hated by many fans, and DC just can't kill him. With Todd, they could've placed him on a redemption path, somekind of storyline about growing and making him a more likeable character. Instead, they got rid of him and replaced him not long after.

Which, again, points out to the obvious... it's not about being main characters, because they aren't... not when fans whine about not liking them. With the Robins, DC can always take the easy route.
This time, in this polls, BATMAN FANS have spoken out, voting in that poll, showing that most of them don't want a Robin in this franchise. And you know what is the easy route?
Not having him in the film.

Does it feel right for you? No. But now you see tht it works both ways.

Uh huh...read a comic. Bad things do happen, and the writers take this into account. They do not ignore this point on any level.

Come on, we're actually talking about a 12 year old who HAD to take a crime fighting crash course because his mentor COULDN'T have found the time to train him properly, LIKE HE WAS.
Do you feel they're taking real world probabilities into account here? It's a comic, they'll take their suspension of disbelief as far as it's convenient to them.

It is. Why you would think it's not that way is beyond me.

Again: Batman's training >>>>>>>>> Robin's training.
But that's how it has been for more than 60 years in comics, isn't that so?

But you're right. It is beyond you.

Except that they are portrayed as incredibly capable, driven, intelligent, resourceful, and as ready as they can possibly be for a massive undertaking like being a superhero. As ready as one can be for a life like that.

Not enough. Remember what Ra's said? "The training is nothing, the will is everything"?
I think you took that a little bit... literally. Maybe metaphors and hyperboles are also beyond you.

Except that he's usually not. Dick wasn't, and Tim wasn't. Jason Todd was reckless, but even he helped Batman for the most part, he didn't hinder him.

Do you remember all the things they did to convince him to train him? Do you remember Dick's attitude? Do you remember Drake actually meddling in Batman's affairs, unveiling his identity? Do you remember both of them disobeying his orders, going into certain mission on their own, when Bruce had clearly said they should "stay put"?
Of course you remember all those? But I guess you're willing to say anything to get ahead, aren't you?

No. That is not why Batman has been getting darker and darker of late.

Who said I was talking about Batman growing darker?

...? No one?

I was talking about his relationship to the family, to Tim especially, who came after Todd's death.

The point is...Robin clearly does not make Batman lighter in any real sense.

Oh? Because I could swear have you quoted as saying:

Oh, they may not get the point... but they see the results. And the results match the original intentions, not the subsequent more noble ones. Robin may have a zillion of points in the story, but all that he's accomplishing this far is making Batman lighter and with a less coherent personality design.

Hmm. Perhaps you misspoke. Again. I AM going to add this to my list. So that's three.

I wasn't the one who said that. I just took in strie, for argument's sake. It was one of you guys, very early. Maybe StorminNorman, he will correct me if I'm wrong.

But hey, I couldn't blame him if he did.... look at this line from HUSH:

"Tim holds on to the idea that Batman needs a Robin, more like balance than like legacy."

??????????? It's Jeph Loeb OUT OF HIS MIND?????

Check it out. It's there.

You used the word "coherent". This implies that the addition of Robin somehow makes Batman's personality less clear or consistent. I fail to see how so.

Enlighten me.

I will give you the most important reason of all... Bruce values human life so much, that he's not even willing to kill his most dangerous foe: the Joker. He knows that killing the Joker would prevent much more deaths from happening. Instead, he just spares his life over... and over... and over again.
He just doesn't ahve the time to train any kid as a capable crime-fighter. He doesn't even have time to sleep, even less to train a twelve year old with a penchant for disobeying him and a great eagerness to get on the streets. Letting that boy go out would not only risk the kids' life, but also the lives of the criminals and innocents that kid has to face. The boy is a loose cannon. And Batman is smart enought to know that, so his constant worries would give him a great distraction in his missions.

These are two lines from one old Batman vs. Shadowsnake storyline.

TIM: I know where he went and I don't want to stay here. I must be by his side.
ALFRED: No. He needs to have his head clear and know that you're safe here.
TIM: I don't want protection nore special treatmement.
ALFRED: He's not just protecting you. You know he only fears one thing.

and later...

BATMAN: I wanted you apart from this. You went deliberately went against my orders.
TIM: Had I obeyed you, you would be dead now.
BATMAN: My life doesn't matter. I would rather...
(he leaves)
TIM(to himself): You'd rather give your life and not risk mine.

That's what I'm talking about. Maybe it is beyond you as well.

So let me get this straight...you think a "bad premise" has been popular for 60 years...just because?

Like Alan Moore (and Saint, I believe) say: "audiences are not artists".
I think people are mot inclined to let pass the inconsistencies in serialized comics, or even in TV. The Adam West series were very popular, after all. And quality has nothing to do with that. I also believe he's NOT that popular, because, as I've said before, the curent Robin has his own series and keeps more time there than with Batman.

Or, allow me to rearrange tht sentence of yours.... do you believe that Robin hasn't ever worked in live-action form... just because?
Oh not, it's just a coincidence.

I don't believe it's a coincidence. I think he's quite harder to do. He can be done right, but that doesn't necessarily means exactly translating what has happened in the comics, something that contains many inconsistencies and dynamics that can't be synthetised in two hours of screen time.
Maybe what Crook was saying about changing the origin. Maybe something good could come from it.
But it wouldn't be the same thing... and I'd be glad it wouldn't.

Ohhh, you think that because he's not in ALL the "major Batman stories" that it means he's a bad element.

Once again...

YEAR ONE
THE LONG HALLOWEEN

These take place before Robin existed.

So him not being in them is hardly evidence of a "bad premise". It's evidence of a faithful translation of the mythology.

Those are only two. Another two could be...
ARKHAM ASYLUM &...
THE KILLING JOKE.

Which don't take place before Robin existed.


Allow me to mention a few more "key Batman stories" that you've just decided to omit in your list.

A DEATH IN THE FAMILY
A LONELY PLACE OF DYING

It's interesting that you had no trouble bringing up BATMAN 1-37 either, until you realized you were wrong and it no longer served your argument against Robin.

You're right there, I made a rookie's mistake. What I meant was "Detective Comics #37". I'll be careful next time, since people really got a hold of that you win the entire argument.
Bottom line, from DC Comics 27 to DC Comics 27... ten months of no Robin. (*sigh*)

Now then...HUSH is not one of the greatest Batman stories ever. It's fun, has great art, gets a lot right, and is one of the most recent best-selling, but hardly one of the best Batman stories ever. The writing, is at best, hackneyed and derivative.

We agree here, but that's something I also think it applies to The Long Halloween. Sometimes gets it right, sometime it's just an excuse for Tim Sale to draw as many characters as he wants, a "whudunnit" story filled with pastiches from great movies like the Godfather and Silence of the Lambs, and tainted with a huge amount of corny one-liners.
And you keep bringing it up.

That said, as you've admitted, the concept of Robin and the concept of costumed allies DID have a place in HUSH, like many other characters. So did the element of Jason Todd, the Robin who was killed. The Huntress made an appearance early on. So you can't remotely argue that the concept of Robin and Batman's costumed allies wasn't a part of HUSH, because it was. HUSH was meant to be a very personal story, so Batman didn't work with his allies much. He does work with them some.

I never denied that. But it is important for Loeb to get as much characters as he wants there... Croc and Poison Ivy were an important part of the story too, as large as Tim Drake. Even Harold was there too. Do you believe they're all cornerstones to Batman mythology? Of course not.

That's what amazes of Loeb, how much he wants to do at the same time, even giving internal monologues that makes the audience catch up with the background of each character. But I digress.

No...not really. Tim Drake working on his own more is Batman realizing Robin has to be his own man and allowing him to be, so that he avoids making the same mistakes he made with Dick.

Which were.... protecting the boys life?

Uh huh. How? Specifically.

In the way that makes him contradict his own precepts without a sufficiently good reason.

Well, they were never going to be as good as Bruce is. You shouldn't have to suspend your disbelief to realize that. That's no argument against them as characters in their own rite.

Bruce as enough trouble trying to stay alive during his missions... and this less trained adolescent kids are playing vigilante with him? Not only worrying him even more, but also endangering their own lives?
Give me back my suspension of disbelieve. I need it, fully recharged.

Oh, I see. But the same doesn't somehow apply to the vigilantes? Mmhmm...

Jason was very skilled. He was sneak attacked by The Joker, and killed by a bomb.

But I suppose that's not getting "surpassed by the circumstances".

I suppose Barbara Gordon getting surprised and shot is also not that.

Which is EXACTLY what I mean.
The cop and the fireman don't take under-trained kids along with them. Batman, for some abnormal reason, does. And HE is the vigilante.

We're not talking about "unskilled". We're talking about "less skilled then the very, very, very best". The same applies to costumed heroes.

A LOT LESS SKILLED. An wealthy adult training for seven years >>>>>>>>>> A 12 year old kid taking a crash course with a teacher that barely has time to keep himself alive.
A WHOLE-UNIVERSE-LESS SKILLED.

What a silly, silly, silly question.

How does any hero who's not as skilled as Batman fight crime?

On their own... without Batman enabling them to do so. Away from Batman's responsibility.

And I'm the one with the silly questions.

Besides, what is a hero?
Brian Douglass considered himself a hero, didn't he?

No. Please stop offering suggestions for why things are or aren't if you don't know for sure.

You've been doing it since the first moment even providing answers devoid of any logic whatsoever. I thought it was ok.

A lot of fans like him as Robin more than Dick Grayson, when he was Robin.

Me among them.
But Batman's attitude to him is even worse, seeing how he "lets him be on his own".

How so? How does Robin "take energy out of Batman"?

Read again what I said about taking over protagonism. You just have to search "Sub Zero".

It's about both. It is a legacy of cooperation. The legacy of Robin as an idea and persona is a huge part of it. A huge part of it. Read a comic.

As I pointed out earlier, Tim Drake differs, according to Jeph Loeb.

Not the only thing were he differs with you, apparently.

CATWOMAN: You try one more time, birdie.. and I'll zip your wings. No matter what your "daddy" says.
TIM: He's not my father.

Maybe Loeb should read a comic.

I didn't say it was a tribute. I said Robin is a legacy. I asked you a simple question. Do you enjoy legacy characters? You replied yes. Therefore, if you know anything about the Batman mythology, and how important the legacy aspect is to Robin, you should be able to appreciate Robin on a similar level.

I'll re-quote, just for you:

"Tim holds on to the idea that Batman needs a Robin, more like balance than like legacy."
- Jeph Loeb, Hush, issue # 10.

I didn't say Robin's legacy was the legacy of Batman (...) It's clearly the legacy of Robin.

The legacy of Robin is being passed on. Dick Grayson. Jason Todd. Tim Drake. Carrie Kelly.

You'd have to be delusional to argue there's no "legacy" element there.

Which futhers strengthens my point of the presence of Robin taking protagonism away from the title character, and not doing much his jobs as a secondary character: which is tribute to the protagonist, being a catalyst for change.
Either he behaves like a normal secondary character, or becomes a protagonist, shich he shouldn't be.
Pick one.

No, of course not. Did I ever mention that simply being around for a while makes one as important as a mythology's major characters?

"He's not made to work along with the Bat? And yet he has...for 60 years...worked along with the bat. And it's worked."
"If we go to "tradition" and "old presence in comics", your argument against Robin's validity disappears. Because Robin's been a key component of the mythology for 60 years now."
"Melkay...Robin's been around for 60 years. Sixty years of presence in Batman stories outweights your precious "four" YEAR ONE/ELSEWORLDS style examples."
"Robin has been shown to have an edge that helps him to survive for 60 years."
"You are trying to tell us that what he wouldn't do contradicts what he has actually been doing, and been portrayed to do...for 60 years."



Ok, I've gathered almost all your longevity lines to make a point... I never said he hasn't been popular... or not important.... what I said is that he wasn't portraying well Batman's attitude towards him. I'm not arguing for presence or trascendence. Those things can be done and still be wrong. I'm arguing against quality... not quantity. Since quantity and longevity is undeniable you keep going back to it because, as your comfort zone... all that I'm saying is that it is harmful for a good portrayal of Batman.

And either that's changed... or it shouldn't go into film.

Thank you.

The problem is, Melkay, that you're presenting examples of Batman comics from the modern
Batman mythos as examples of how you believe explain why Robin is a bad character.

No, I'm presenting examples of the most celebrated ones, even when they don't belong to modern mythos and are just part of the ELSEWORLDS, like Arkham Asylum.

So I'm looking at things in the contexct that you yourself have presented to me.

I was doing you a favor... do you really want to talk about Silver Age here? We'll have to clean later.

If we're talking about BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE LONG HALLOWEEN, then we're not talking about the same continuity that existed in 1940.

And yet that was the continuity in which Robin was created, and many Robin defenders here keep getting back to it.
The problem is that the most celebrated storylines belong to the Modern Mythos... but within the Modern Mythos are many stories with subpar quality.

If you can't use logic by yourself, tell me. There are many things in this debate that seem to be "beyond you".



Only one post left. I hope you don't keep taking work hours to reply to my posts. It's flattering, but now I feel responsible for your personal life.

Don't push yourself too much. Or we'll have to clean later, too. t:

 

[tekken]

why the hate for robin? most of the really good batman stories have robin in them anyways..dark victory, no man's land, hush, just to name a few.

without robin, batman just goes nuts. the robins have been the only ones who have allowed batman to sustain what's left of his humanity; even jason. while dick and tim were the ones calming batman down, batman was the one calming jason down. each of the robins actually provided something different for batman. they were all his sons.

i think robin could work in a nolan movie, and still be out fighting crime. im sure robin can handle street thugs - not big names like joker and two face, but it's not like batman fights people like joker every night. but for like the last fight between batman and the villain, it should be robin on the bat-comp doing the stuff fox did in the dark knight.

 

[Melkay]

I have thoroughly enjoyed The Guard's thrashing of Melkay

Hehehe, you could not do it in your moment, now you're trying to live through other people's accomplishments? Wow.

You sound like Mike Huckabee after the primaries. t:

Don't worry, I enjoy it too. I completely ejoyed El Payaso's pawnage of both Saint and Guard.

The difference is that, unlike me and your two heros, he can do that in a much shorter form. Because it's not about the long pawnage... it's about being right.

Me as well, and I haven't even read it yet!

Next time I look for the definition of pathetism in my dictionary, I'll paste your nick name over it. You've just redefined the concept.

 

[hatebox]

I think at the very least Batman should look well into his forties before having a younger side kick. The idea of a 30 something Batman (ie Bale) having even an old teenager by his side doesn't really work for me.

I mean, I can't stand the idea of Robin at all, but I try to be open minded about it as far as i can.

 

[itsthebatman]

And here...we...go...

Without further ado:

Basic elements that Melkay made definitive statements about that he got really wrong about Robin and his portrayal in the comics in the last day or so, leading me to believe that he doesn't understand the character at all, and therefore isn't qualified to argue against it, though of course we all value his opinion.

1 Drake is almost like a younger, happier and more hyperkinetic Dick Grayson
2 Drake is the less defined Robin of the series
3. Robin makes Batman lighter.
4 the third Robin actually debuted in the Robin series
5. Batman doesn’t turn a “blind eye” for anyone else. No one else.

Melkay, from your posts, while you may understand the very basics about Robin, it's obvious you don't understand or know the details. You like to tell people to "take a look again". Well, I suggest you read the material you're condemning and making definitive statements about a bit more closely. Because it's obvious that you

1. Never have.
or
2. Don't remember it.

Calling it a poor concept doesn't make it so. It just demonstrates a complete lack of imagination on your part and in this case, a complete lack of understanding of the concepts and the way they have actually been used, and used successfully, in the mythology.

You're trying to say that the idea of Robin contradicts the character, because you don't believe Batman would do that.

Here's the thing. As much as I value your intelligent assessment of Batman's emotional state...

The Batman character from the comics has done what you claim he would not do for over 60 years. You are trying to tell us that what he wouldn't do contradicts what he has actually been doing, and been portrayed to do...for 60 years.

As much as I'd like to say that what you personally think Batman would or wouldn't do somehow outweighs what he has been portrayed as actually DOING and BEING...the mythology, the source material itself, says without question that this is something Batman WOULD do, and has done...for...what's that everyone?

Over sixty years.

More than sixty years of stories where Batman, in some form or another, has had young costumed sidekicks and allies. Where Batman trains them, lets them operate, and in many ways, encourages their operation in the context of his mission.

A Bathound
Three Robins
The Spoiler/female Robin
Three Batgirls (one became Oracle later on)
Two Batwomen
Azrael
Catwoman

And of course...Orpheus

You don't have to like that. You don't have to believe it's realistic. But your ridiculous assertions that "Batman would not do that" appear to be based on some bizarre reinvention of the character.

You can argue what a realistic Batman would or wouldn't do till the cows come home. I'll take what the mythology that birthed him and made him so successful and fantastic tells me.

What's even more pathetic is that you are depriving yourself of one of the most beautiful and powerful aspects of the Batman mythology.

His family.

So I'll keep my crappy sponges, thanks.

This is all beautiful, sums it up nicely for me.

This is the best thread since the 'I guess Joker wears make-up after all'
one. Loving the argument and counterargument. In-depth exploration of a character like this makes it worth coming here.

 

[regwec]

Just leave Milky to it- it's clear that he enjoys being humiliated.

Have any of the impressively long posts dealt with the way in which Robin can act as a critical moral voice to Batman, distinct from Alfred?

 

[The Guard]

No. We don't feel the need to state the obvious.

Unless, of course, someone is obviously wrong.

 

[itsthebatman]

Just leave Milky to it- it's clear that he enjoys being humiliated.

Have any of the impressively long posts dealt with the way in which Robin can act as a critical moral voice to Batman, distinct from Alfred?

I don't think so. Can you expand on this point, with as many painstakingly researched references to Robin's 68 year history as possible?

 

[regwec]

Nope, but it was a sincere question, so there is no need to be hostile.

 

[itsthebatman]

No. We don't feel the need to state the obvious.

Unless, of course, someone is obviously wrong.

Never has your avatar been more appropriate.
Unless you're typing this on your laptop in bed, with your wife helping you out.
Mine's pregnant, BTW. Irrelevant to this debate, clearly, but I just had to tell you guys!

 

[itsthebatman]

Nope, but it was a sincere question, so there is no need to be hostile.

I wasn't. Misguided humour. My point was just tha Robin has been a moral voice for his long acreer, which he has shared with Batman for such a long time that surely everyone can see he's a crucial part of the mythos.
That's just the level the debate is at (a high one). If you took me up wrong, sorry.

 

[The Guard]

Now I'm curious as to what DevSingh1359 posted and then edited.

 

[The Guard]

We should definitely get into things like Robin's actual impact on Batman here at some point.

 

[itsthebatman]

We should definitely get into things like Robin's actual impact on Batman here at some point.

That's easy. He makes him a lighter character and takes away from teh realisticz.

EDIT: Just saw this. Thoughts?
http://chud.com/articles/articles/1...MAKING-THE-CASE-FOR-THE-BOY-WONDER/Page1.html

 

[The Guard]

Heh.

 

[itsthebatman]

Heh.

First thing that came to mind.
Robin adds balance to Batman's life, and gives him a family. Yes, Alfred is there, but this is Batman starting his own family.