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

[Melkay]

Guard, since Saint’s reply is shorter and more concise than yours, I’m gonna reply to his post first before I’m done handling yours. Hope that’s okay with you.

… What?

Retirement from the Robin role. What didn’t you get?

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.

Yes they are. A writer explanations within the narrative is something completely different to his actual intentions for the story. Only the second is the actual cause, while the first is how that choice is justified by the characters, the circumstances, etc.

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.

I agree, but friction was the determining factor… their disagreements. And that’s something that’s not inherent to parental relationships. Like I said, couples have it too. They break up because of that. And many times after their split, Nightwing has been there to work with Bruce and Bruce not always accepts it. Usually, when sons leave the house, parents (especially over-protective ones) are always happy to have them back, even trying to keep them close more time. Remember my Under The Hood quote? Did that sound like father and son to you?

I’m not saying they don’t fit the archetype… just that it’s the defining metaphor of their relationship. If it is so indeed, then it’s too inconsistent.

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.

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.

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.

Keep attention to this because it’s really important.

Coming of age DOESN’T include disagreements. It doesn’t include friction. It is not defined by banter or by teasing. What about all the sons who live happily with their fathers, or have perfect relationships to them? Some of them were even encouraged by their fathers to move on, instead of resisting the idea, like Batman did.
It could be just time passing. With couples, as time passes by, they gain different goals and expectations. People change. And that makes people to go on different paths. But it doesn’t belong to father and sons relationships. Couples, friends, work colleagues, competitors, etc.
Something you would have noticed if you didn’t took for granted every single thing you are told. Some thinking outside the box would do you good.

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

It doesn’t mean they were right reasons either. Once you establish the fallibility of executive choices, everything is questionable. I didn’t mind too much Robin becoming Nightwing (a decision I loved), but I do question Batman taking another Robin. And since you agreed that the executives are fallible, I thought we were ready to discuss for the 18938921389th time why I thought it was a poor decision.

Actually, good writers make the mediocre choices of their predecessors work.

Not all of them can. Once creative freedom is narrowed, there’s only so much a guy can do.
That’s one of my problems with Loeb and his constant “voice-overs” explaining every character to the readers. Not his choices, but he has to honor the past, doesn’t he?

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

Excuse me?

Sure. Never seen anything with a promising potential and a disappointing delivery? Hancock, for example?
Interesting =/= Good quality.

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.

Again, like I said to Guard, some guys at Wikipedia seem to agree with me.

“Tim was introduced as a happy medium between the first two Robins in that, from the readers' point of view, he is neither overly well behaved like Dick Grayson nor overly impudent like Jason Todd.”

I do like Tim Drake, he’s my favorite Robin. I like cerebral and smart characters. What I am complaining about is Batman’s acceptance of him, like with the previous Robins.

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

The concept of his relationship to Batman, not the character individually. If you think those things cannot be separated, I disagree. I enjoy Robin very much on his own, but not when he’s with the bat.

This is ridiculous. Of course one can do that.

…. Somewhere over the rainbow.

Before anyone responds with "That is so gay," I'll advise you to save your keystrokes.

I'm not interesting in juvenile stupidity.

What I’m going to say is: that was a great example…. Because it embodies almost everything I’ve been saying. It doesn’t show the two of them fighting together, but rather Bruce’s empathy with the character and how his enabling ends up in complete tragedy. For all intents and purposes, that could be Batman comforting another anonymous orphan boy with a rough life like him…. Or a Robin about to be removed from his position because Batman finally realized his mistake of taking him in…. but no… even after things like that, Batman repeats again the same mistake.

It’s not about being gay… it’s about being blinded by empathy. It’s about being irresponsible and soft.
Batman is not (and should not) be like that.

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.

So far, I agree… great Nightwing, great tragic death story, great Red Hood, great Tim Drake…………………………. Weak Batman.
All of them work great individually. And I’ve said that many times over.

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.

If he was reasonable, he would’ve killed the Joker years ago… but he lets his ONE TRUE RULE override reason… his inability to take a life.
And yet, he risks an adolescent time all the time.
I’m happy to pay attention to the rules of that fictional world, but even then Batman’s attitude towards Robin keeps being an inconsistency, and a big one.

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.

I don’t think so. It’s a possibility, of course, and I would be happy if that were the case. But when it comes to the fate of important characters, I don’t think the decision comes from the writers. Maybe the suggestion, but never the decision.
However, I’ll give you that we’re both guessing here.

It was important to both.

And Important =/= Good. Robin may have a great influence on Bruce, but the premise of that influence still feels contrived and forced upon, since Bruce would never break his “one rule”, especially with a teenager. I’m in favor such an important impact on Bruce’s character… I just want it to be coherent. Like El Payaso said, why not fund a school for determined boys, or an orphanage? And if he wanted a side-kick, why not look for a wife instead of a son? He’s not prepared to have either of both, so why not risk the life of an adult? Why not partner with a semi-skilled vigilante woman?

Sure, and he works 'all to well" without Gordon or Alfred around.

He does?

At least they’re consistent with Batman’s beliefs, so he should and would allow them to cooperate. But neither of them teenagers, Gordon his doing his own job as a policeman (within the system Batman respects) and Alfred doesn’t even go into the battlefield.

Big differences.

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

... What?

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.

You said the art was sound, and I was disagreeing by showing you some examples. There.
I also argue against more than three guys at a time, and I’m likely to have some slips. Even Guard forgot Alfred was in The Killing Joke and that Bale’s Robin casting was only a rumor. Slips are inevitable and, accordingly, I won’t demand more from you.

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.

I was referring to Tim Drake’s appearances. Are you too?

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.

The moment the inter-character dynamic is flawed by providing Batman with thin and poor justified explanations for having Robin, the moment the concept can’t go right.

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.

As El Payaso and I have demonstrated, he could have done more.

I've talked about Batman decision making here before. Yes, it's insane. So is putting on a batcostume.

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.

Even insane people have precepts, especially Batman. He wouldn’t risk an innocent boy’s life for any reason. Not even if it meant his own death. THAT’S a consistent character. Betraying that precept is betraying one of Batman’s more important beliefs, if not the most.

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

I don’t mind if its abnormal as long as its coherent with the rest of Batman’s extreme qualities. As demonstrated above, that’s not the case.

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

So do I, and yet you act like if you had not seen them. Besides, you don’t reply to everything. You were the one who wrote: “I did read it. I just didn't consider it worthy of response.” I know a little hypocrisy has never hurt anyone, but let’s call things by their names.

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

Sorry, your phrasing made it so ambiguous……….. “God” is a big word after all.

Maybe you should think of changing your sig this time around. Just a suggestion.

 

[Melkay]

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

Here are some extracts from my reply to Saint, for you:

"What I’m going to say is: that was a great example…. Because it embodies almost everything I’ve been saying. It doesn’t show the two of them fighting together, but rather Bruce’s empathy with the character and how his enabling ends up in complete tragedy. For all intents and purposes, that could be Batman comforting another anonymous orphan boy with a rough life like him…. Or a Robin about to be removed from his position because Batman finally realized his mistake of taking him in…. but no… even after things like that, Batman repeats again the same mistake.

It’s not about being gay… it’s about being blinded by empathy. It’s about being irresponsible and soft.
Batman is not (and should not) be like that."


"If he was reasonable, he would’ve killed the Joker years ago… but he lets his ONE TRUE RULE override reason… his inability to take a life.
And yet, he risks an adolescent time all the time.
I’m happy to pay attention to the rules of that fictional world, but even then Batman’s attitude towards Robin keeps being an inconsistency, and a big one."


"Even insane people have precepts, especially Batman. He wouldn’t risk an innocent boy’s life for any reason. Not even if it meant his own death. THAT’S a consistent character. Betraying that precept is betraying one of Batman’s more important beliefs, if not the most."


And, again, Loeb's perspective: "Tim holds on to the idea that Batman needs a Robin, more as a balance than as legacy".

And I ask... if not such balance is present (Batman isn't getting any lighter or less obsessed), and by taking Robin Bruce is betraying his most important precept.... is Robin really doing what he's meant to do?

 

[Mastodon123]

The fact you're using a wikipedia entry as an example to justify your reasonings is hilarious. Thats really irrelavent.

 

[Melkay]

The fact you're using a wikipedia entry as an example to justify your reasonings is hilarious. Thats really irrelavent.

I'm basing my reasoning on my own opinion, like everybody else is doing here. But since that's not valid enough, I looked up other people's opinions, and hey! the partially agree with me. Wikipedia is still comprised of people, you know?

The fact that you're trying to debunk that logic with the word "hilarious" is... well, hilarious.

 

[Mastodon123]

I'm basing my reasoning on my own opinion, like everybody else is doing here. But since that's not valid enough, I looked up other people's opinions, and hey! the partially agree with me. Wikipedia is still comprised of people, you know?

The fact that you're trying to debunk that logic with the word "hilarious" is... well, hilarious.

The fact wikipedia isn't really trustwrothy enough and anyone can edit the pages makes it hilarious.
See I don't want to see Robin in Nolan's films simply because I don't like him. You're just shooting yourself in foot here.

 

[Rasputin911]

so damn gay

 

[protoctista]

His every post re-inforces my sneaking suspicion that Melkay is my doppleganger

 

[Saint]

Yes they are. A writer explanations within the narrative is something completely different to his actual intentions for the story. Only the second is the actual cause, while the first is how that choice is justified by the characters, the circumstances, etc.

Congratulations: you have determined that there is a distinction. This does nothing to prove your claim that my comments are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand what that means? It means that one being true doesn't make the other false. So, in this instance, it means that my comment that Dick Grayson became Nightwing was because times passes even in comics does not preclude my other statement that he also became Nightwing because somebody decided a coming of age story was a relevant and compelling thing to do with the character. It happened for both reasons.

I agree, but friction was the determining factor… their disagreements. And that’s something that’s not inherent to parental relationships.

Of course it is. That you would claim otherwise is patently ridiculous. Are you actually human? If you were not human, I could excuse this misconception. Since you probably are human, I have to assume you're just saying ridiculous things for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Coming of age DOESN’T include disagreements. It doesn’t include friction.

What? If you're going to say things like this, which are just obviously wrong, we're not going to get anywhere. The road to adulthood is probably the part of a person's life with more friction than any other.

It is not defined by banter or by teasing.

Except for when it is. Hint: different character are, well different. Dick is a smartass. Part of his relationship with Bruce is expressed through, well, being a smartass.

What about all the sons who live happily with their fathers, or have perfect relationships to them?

No such thing as a perfect relationship. Anywhere. Ever. I am beginning to suspect my theory about you not actually being human is correct; no human would suppose otherwise. Conflict is inherent in every relationship. This isn't even debatable. What's more--Dick lives with Bruce just fine, despite their conflicts.

But it doesn’t belong to father and sons relationships.

Sure. But in this instance, that is what it is, as i have been explaining.

Of course I have. I understand that's what happened with Hancock because I can seperate premise from execution
Interesting =/= Good quality.

Will you stop wasting my time with strawman fallacies? Again, you misrepresent what I said as some asinine absolute that you can knock over. No, I didn't say interesting concepts equal good quality. They are a part of quality.

Again, like I said to Guard, some guys at Wikipedia seem to agree with me.
"Tim was introduced as a happy medium between the first two Robins in that, from the readers' point of view, he is neither overly well behaved like Dick Grayson nor overly impudent like Jason Todd.”

Uh... that doesn't support your claim that Tim was "lighter" than Dick at all. In fact, the idea that Tim was a medium between Todd and Grayson would directly refute that.

The concept of his relationship to Batman, not the character individually. If you think those things cannot be separated, I disagree.

Of course they can't be separated. Robin's relationship with Batman is a defining attribute of the character. You'd have a completely different character without it. A complaint against the relationship is a complaint against Robin's character.

it’s about being blinded by empathy. It’s about being irresponsible and soft.

Absolutely. I already talked about how emotion is overriding reason is what drives Batman to do things that are insane (like dressing up in a bat costume). Emotion has always been Batman's ultimate weakness. He is not equipped to deal with it, and he does crazy crap when it gets to him. He is so vulnerable to it that it's controlled his entire life since he was eight years old.

If he was reasonable, he would’ve killed the Joker years ago… but he lets his ONE TRUE RULE override reason… his inability to take a life.And yet, he risks an adolescent time all the time.
I’m happy to pay attention to the rules of that fictional world, but even then Batman’s attitude towards Robin keeps being an inconsistency, and a big one.

We've already discussed this: what he does is to save Robin's life.

I don’t think so. It’s a possibility, of course, and I would be happy if that were the case. But when it comes to the fate of important characters, I don’t think the decision comes from the writers. Maybe the suggestion, but never the decision.
However, I’ll give you that we’re both guessing here.

At least they’re consistent with Batman’s beliefs,

Which beliefs? Because all evidents indicates that batman believes sending adolescents into the fray is the acceptable if the alternative is them being alone and dead. You seem to be thinking of your Imaginary Batman again.

I was referring to Tim Drake’s appearances. Are you too?

Yes.

Even insane people have precepts, especially Batman. He wouldn’t risk an innocent boy’s life for any reason. Not even if it meant his own death. THAT’S a consistent character. Betraying that precept is betraying one of Batman’s more important beliefs, if not the most.

People betray their ideals all the time. Batman, though, isn't--he's making a choice about the best way to keep the boy alive.

So do I, and yet you act like if you had not seen them. Besides, you don’t reply to everything.

Nor did I claim to. I respond to what warrants response.

Sorry, your phrasing made it so ambiguous……….. “God” is a big word after all.

So your species does not understand the concept of hyperbole? Interesting.

Since you don't, how about a different approach? You might go to the "Do you believe in a God/Higher Power thread in Community and see what I think about gods. For starters, I don't believe in automatic deference to them (nor worship). That is to say, even if Nolan were a God, I would not necessarily agree that all his decisions are the best decisions.

As an aside, what's with all the BBcode in your posts? You've got certain lines set to Verdana three times. Trimming it all out is annoying.

 

[Saint]

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

I think it was way back in this thread that BatmanFanatic and I had a ridiculous discussion about it. Or maybe that was the "Adapting Robin" thread. Either way, it was good.

 

[usmcrice0311]

post deleted

 

[Melkay]

The fact wikipedia isn't really trustwrothy enough and anyone can edit the pages makes it hilarious.
See I don't want to see Robin in Nolan's films simply because I don't like him. You're just shooting yourself in foot here.

They ahve a pretty efficient filter for edits. And it's still another person's opinion.
Besides, you're actually shooting yourself (and me as well) on the foot. Don't say you don't want him because you don't like it. Subjectivity doesn't work here. Opinion is not enough reason to defend something. I don't like many things in the mythos but without reasons I would only be spreading subjectivity and bias. You need arguments here, otherwise your just harming similar stances by association.

His every post re-inforces my sneaking suspicion that Melkay is my doppleganger

Thank you man, most flattering post ever.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

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?

What, you never heard of on-the-job training? This is the very foundation of the Master/Apprentice relationship. When a carpenter takes on an apprentice he doesn't send him off to tibet to learn how to use a table saw. He trains him in the shop. On the job. The kid starts off doing small jobs, being just an assistant. Eventually, as his skills grow, his responsibilities do too.

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

Yeah, and if he doesn't have the supervision of a master like Batman, that's exactly what he'd do.

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.

Isn't that's why it's compelling? Because you can question what in the hell Batman is doing? If he's making the right decision or not? I think if I was writing it I would present it as a choice that Batman makes, believing it's the only way to save the kid. Especially since the kid is basically him. When he looks at Dick he sees himself kneeling in that alley, crying over his dead parents. He doesn't accept the kid partly because it makes him face the scared child that he himself once was. And when he DOES accept the kid, it's about him being able to look in the funhouse mirror and see that weird little reflection of himself... just Bruce faces his fear of bats in BB, when he steps into the cave - I think that Batman eventually facing this orphan, Dick Grayson, is about making some measure of peace with that little boy that he used to be, and the weird trajectory his own life has taken.

If the boy is probably going to endanger his and others lives and be an obstacle in his early missions, why take him in?

Because it's better to keep him close where he can protect him, than letting him run off and get himself killed?

If the kid can be put away in some reformatory, why go through all the trouble of making him Robin?

Why would he put Dick in a reformatory? Alfred could have done that to Bruce, but he didn't. Every time I hear this I think of an exchange in "A Christmas Carol."

"I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

If he takes him in the end, why not do the same with every young orphaned boy with some skills?

It's circumstancial, isn't it? Dick's parents died right in front of him and Bruce. It was an echo of what happened to Thomas and Martha. Bruce felt a connection with the kid because of that. Jason and Tim, their stories are different and they're the ones that Batman is usually more resistant to, because they aren't Dick and it isn't the same situation. You have to realize that Batman doesn't WANT to bring in every kid, but Dick was a unique situation. The others made their cases in their own way. Jason was a mistake, he was never qualified really and that's why he died. Tim is a badass.

If Batman wants to keep that kind of kids out of trouble, why not buy an orphanage and improve its system?

That's the sort of thing he would probably do. But again, Dick is a unique situation, and if Bruce sees himself when he sees Dick, why in the hell would he toss him into an orphanage? He adopts him because it's him, all over again. What happened to Dick and his parents is personal for Bruce.

If Batman is in need for a vigilante partner, why not recruit an adult who actually has what it takes?

Because he doesn't want a partner. He adopts Dick because when he sees the kid he feels that he has to. Right or wrong, it's what his heart moves him to do.

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

That's a personal limitation on your part, and is utterly irrelevant to the larger picture, as the world, thank God, does not revolve around your limited intellect.

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.

Again, on the job training, smartass.

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.

This is your own personal cognitive limitation striking again. You have utterly no concept of the word "apprentice" or what it means. I realize that this is because in the modern world it's alien to most people, especially younger folks, but have you ever heard of a "master electrician" or a "master plumber" or some such? They didn't enter into the workforce as masters. They were trained from nothing as basically teens and worked their way up. Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. I think there's some other steps in there too, but anyway. This is not some new idea coming out of left-field.

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

Do all of Batman's decisions reflect an entirely rational frame of mind? Is it rational to dress up like a bat and beat the snot out of people in the night? Come on, now.

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.

Who are you to talk to me about logic? You wouldn't know logic if it crawled up your ass and found a polyp. First of all, Dick doesn't generally disobey or annoy Batman. That's Jason Todd.

Secondly, as I've already covered... the nature of apprentice means that he learns on-the-job. Is he out there fighting the Joker right away? Hell no. There are times when Bruce would leave Dick out of it. But Dick could sure practice on some muggers, don't you think? Or covering the front door while Batman goes in the back and kicks the crap out of some guys? That's how apprentice works. You don't get in on the hard work right away.

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.

"Who cares?" Amazing. You've gone from "Batman cares too much about children to risk their lives in combat" to, "Batman shouldn't care if this kid goes out and gets himself killed."

Which one of us is not making sense here? Here's a hint: his name starts with "M" and ends in "elkay."

Just sayin'.

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.

Um... what? I think you're mistaken. I'm not ignoring the dangers at all. I'm just suggesting that Batman is the kind of guy who understands that life is full of dangers, and a bad parent is one who tries to baby their child and protect them from all of the scary things in life, eventually having to surrender their offspring to a world for which they are completely unprepared. A good parent is one who understands that danger is a part of life and rather than babying their child, at some point they understand that it's about preparing them to face the dangers. DRIVING A CAR can get you killed if you do it wrong, but if you don't ever do it you never learn how.

This is an example, a METAPHOR, and I'm not meaning to suggest that fighting bad guys is like driving a car. Simply that Batman understands that Dick has made a choice - and rather than trying to lock him up and keep him from doing it, he's going to teach him how to do it RIGHT... so that he can survive and be effective at it. How's THAT for logic, Admiral Loophole?

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.

Whims? Tantrums? Out of control? You don't actually have any idea who Dick Grayson is, do you?

 

[Melkay]

Congratulations: you have determined that there is a distinction. This does nothing to prove your claim that my comments are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand what that means? It means that one being true doesn't make the other false. So, in this instance, it means that my comment that Dick Grayson became Nightwing was because times passes even in comics does not preclude my other statement that he also became Nightwing because somebody decided a coming of age story was a relevant and compelling thing to do with the character. It happened for both reasons.

Agreed, but what I find no explanation for is why Batman perpetuated the Robin figure. I get the reasons of both Dick and the writers to stop being Robin and become independent. I get. What I don't get is why Batman recruited another Robin, something that is quite understandble from the writer's position (market and fan pleasing) but contrived within the story (first Batman did it was contradictory, and yet ater abandoning a Robin comes another boy with similar situation to make that mistake again?).

That is what you haven't explained. And I do believe that the actual reason is onefold, not two fold like Nightwings birth.... because it contains yet another contradiction of Batman's rule. He can have mistake once, but twice?

And don't even get me started on the third Robin, after the death of the second one. The only thing that alliviates that is that Drake knows Bruce's secret. If I were a writer, he would have become Nightwing's partner, not Batman's. Instead, they went with stupid arbitrary logic of the jedi master/padawan: "For one Batman, there must be always a Robin", which is understandable from a market perspective, but fatally flawed on a narrative level.

What? If you're going to say things like this, which are just obviously wrong, we're not going to get anywhere. The road to adulthood is probably the part of a person's life with more friction than any other.

Oops, my bad... I didn't mean "coming of age" but "parenthood relationships". Again, my bad.

Hint: different character are, well different. Dick is a smartass. Part of his relationship with Bruce is expressed through, well, being a smartass.

Sure. But in this instance, that is what it is, as i have been explaining.

So, their relationship it's not defined by allegory, is it? It is a reflection of human condition since it's so specific. It's not a discourse on father-son relationships... it is just a relationship between two persons.
I'm not saying you said anything, just that up, to understand your stance.

No such thing as a perfect relationship. Anywhere. Ever. I am beginning to suspect my theory about you not actually being human is correct; no human would suppose otherwise. Conflict is inherent in every relationship. This isn't even debatable. What's more--Dick lives with Bruce just fine, despite their conflicts.

One thing is the presence of minor conflicts and another is a determing conflict that brought the separation. I don't know about you, but most people I know didn't leave as they grew up because they couldn't live with their parents anymore. It was just the natural thing to do.

And Dick lives with Bruce? Didn't he leave Wayne Manor?

Will you stop wasting my time with strawman fallacies? Again, you misrepresent what I said as some asinine absolute that you can knock over. No, I didn't say interesting concepts equal good quality. They are a part of quality.

But you replied to my concerns aout quality saying that the premise was interesting... which forced me to explain how that didn't matter because interesting was not the same as good, in a way that you could understand (which took me more than three posts, by the way).

Since I talked first about quality, and you replied with the interesting bit, then you made us both waste our times.

I will I act as the bigger man. I forgive you.

Uh... that doesn't support your claim that Tim was "lighter" than Dick at all. In fact, the idea that Tim was a medium between Todd and Grayson would directly refute that.

The fact the Dick was more developed in the Silver Age and Tim in modern comics doesn't mean a thing. The fact that Dick is always cocky and teasing Bruce doesn't mean a thing. Dick lost his parents and was filled with rage, and he also had all the friction with Bruce. Drakes motives for becoming Robin were more innocent and his father died after he became Robin. I'm just looking at the events here, not the portrayals, since any Silver Age will always lose against the more mature and dark approach we have in today's comics.

It did serve to support my claim that he was the less defined of the Three, resembling several of Grayson's characteristics in a way that was not overly superficial, as some said here.

Of course they can't be separated. Robin's relationship with Batman is a defining attribute of the character. You'd have a completely different character without it. A complaint against the relationship is a complaint against Robin's character.

When I say character I mean personality. Without his history with Batman, of course Robin would be different, but you can recreate his personality in film without going through his relationship to Batman. If you change Batman stance about the partnership, of have Nightwing right from the start, instead of having Robin, I wouldn't be so coy about the inclusion.

Absolutely. I already talked about how emotion is overriding reason is what drives Batman to do things that are insane (like dressing up in a bat costume). Emotion has always been Batman's ultimate weakness. He is not equipped to deal with it, and he does crazy crap when it gets to him. He is so vulnerable to it that it's controlled his entire life since he was eight years old.

And yet he's not emotional enough to get overly-protective with a child he feel identified with, trying to provide him with the fairly normal he didn't have, or trying to make him more the man he would want to be (the pure hero Harvey Dent) instead of himself (the tortured vigilante).
If Batman was really empathetic and completely emotion towards Robin, he wouldn't let him to put his life at risk. He wouldn't allow him to be Robin.

Come on, Saint, I stilll respect you as a reasonable person but... Is that really so hard for you to understand?

We've already discussed this: what he does is to save Robin's life.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

You know what, scratch what I said. You are not a reasonable person, and you probably won't ever be.

Whoever said that you were too stubborn to change your mind may have been absolutely right.

Which beliefs? Because all evidents indicates that batman believes sending adolescents into the fray is the acceptable if the alternative is them being alone and dead. You seem to be thinking of your Imaginary Batman again.

Dead?

DEAD????

How **cking so?

A reformatory to cool his temper as long as he can? Sending to school? Providing funds to an oprhanage to prevent more kids like him of not having enough love or life quality in their lives?.... those things would have him Dead?
Listen, Batman has to deal with saving his foes lives all the time... and still sending them to Arkham. If that kid feels the need to go beating people, Batman will understand and commiserate... but he won't enable him to risk his and other's lives. He will be treated as criminal, for it is a crime what he is doing.

If you don't agree with this, I won't say you don't understand the character at all, but I will say we have COMPLETELY different visions of how Batman is (and should be). And we should just leave it here before I say the part in bold.

Yes.

Good, then you're just guessing here too. But I'm willing to bet that Robin has more solo appearances than with Batman, at least when it comes to issues, not entire story arcs.
He does have his own series, after all .

People betray their ideals all the time. Batman, though, isn't--he's making a choice about the best way to keep the boy alive.

Keeping the boy alive, huh?
My friend.... you belong in Arkham.

Nor did I claim to. I respond to what warrants response.

Can you define that?

So your species does not understand the concept of hyperbole? Interesting.

I understand it all too well, I'm often persecuted for being hyperbolic.

As an aside, what's with all the BBcode in your posts? You've got certain lines set to Verdana three times. Trimming it all out is annoying.

I don't check too much the text after posting, and sometimes I write it in Word and the code gets copied with the words. It happens.

 

[bunk]

Is this common for people to compose responses in Word first?
I've never heard of that.

 

[SheldonLevene]

Is this common for people to compose responses in Word first?
I've never heard of that.

Bunk don't waste your time in here with this argument. To the suit thread to devise a fabulous manip for us to marvel at.

 

[Crook]

Is this common for people to compose responses in Word first?
I've never heard of that.

@ the Word comment being the sole statement picked out of this gigantic debate.

 

[SheldonLevene]

@ the Word comment being the sole statement picked out of this gigantic debate.

Fantastic avvy.

 

[bunk]

Is this common for people to compose responses in Word first?
I've never heard of that.

 

[The Sage]

Oops, my bad... I didn't mean "coming of age" but "parenthood relationships". Again, my bad.

All the same, parental relationships are laced with friction as well. There's no such thing as the perfect parent/child relationship. Disagreements will happen, as they should. In fact, every relationship has friction.

 

[bunk]

Bunk don't waste your time in here with this argument. To the suit thread to devise a fabulous manip for us to marvel at.

I'm kind of done with batsuits for a minute. I have Green Lantern and Catwoman going on when I can get back to them.

@ the Word comment being the sole statement picked out of this gigantic debate.

Heh, yeah that just stuck me as odd.

And don't ask how I managed to post that same question twice like 20 minutes apart.

 

[The Guard]

Guard, it is selective aging the moment that Dick is no longer Robin, and is replaced by another boy of about the same age he was when he began being Robin. That way, Batman keeps getting older… but ROBIN doesn’t. Dick is 22, but Tim may be about 14-15, and Batman keeps aging.

Except that Robin DOES age along with Nightwing, Batman, and others. Tim has aged three years. He began at age 12 or 13, and is now 15 or 16.

But, as you cleverly pointed out before, it’s all a matter of mythology. There are still the non-canon stories, and Modern Mythology may still suffer another reset. And then there’s the mythology of this thread’s subject, Nolan’s world, where Batman is NOT 26 as he should be in Year Two, but 31.

31 years old and no sign of Robin.

Someone seems to agree with me.

As much as I'd love to pretend that Nolan's less-than-entirely faithful take on the Batman mythology means ANYTHING in the context of how valuable the actual mythology is...

It doesn't.

Are we talking about the same Batman that had Dick Grayson joining him on almost every mission? And I’m glad you agree with me on Tim being too much on his own, instead of developing a relationship to Bruce.

Yes, we're talking about the same Batman. You're only proving my point here Melkay. Bruce gives Tim far more freedom than he gave Dick. This is a major difference between them.

How is Tim being on his own a bad thing? And he DID develop a relationship with Bruce...for years and years. They've evolved their relationship, just as they've evolved the character.

Hehehehe, funny, because some guys at Wikipedia seem to agree with me and disagree with you:

Oh no...some guy on Wikipedia agrees with you about...

oh...wait a minute...

No he doesn't.

“Tim was introduced as a happy medium between the first two Robins in that, from the readers' point of view, he is neither overly well behaved like Dick Grayson nor overly impudent like Jason Todd.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_(comics)#Tim_Drake

... Words elude me right now so I’ll be quiet while you take your time to reflect on your own right now.

Wow.

Read the Wikipedia entry again.

“Tim was introduced as a happy medium between the first two Robins in that, from the readers' point of view, he is neither overly well behaved like Dick Grayson nor overly impudent like Jason Todd.”

I never argued with you that Tim wasn't a happy medium when he started out. I argued that he's much different and darker than Dick Grayson when he was Robin. That's what he began as, Melkay. That's now what he is now.

What am I wrong about again?

In his line of work, yeah. Would Bruce fail to make himself an intimidating symbol, he would be risking not only his goals but also his life.

You're telling me that when Batman fails to be intimidating to someone...somehow a vehicle would be?

Riiight.

The Batmobile is useful. That still doesn't explain how it is a "need".

What I found amazing is how, when Crook rebuked your argument, you resorted to saying things like: “well, it’s doesn’t make much difference” and “Bale protests too much.”
Even I know that’s pathetic.

It's pathetic to say I feel it doesn't matter?

I don't think it does make too much difference to this particular topic, that of Robin's validity. Why would I?

Regarding Gordon, I will admit my words being to hyperbolic. Ordinary is not so much the right word as simple and “humble” (as opposed to megalomaniacs and cynics that are abundant in Gotham.

Oh...so you misspoke again?

He isn't the only "humble" man in the Batman mythology, either. There are many characters who can fill that bill. GOTHAM CENTRAL is full of them.

I still think that kind of character was needed to flesh out Batman’s relationship to the police, and authorities in general. It didn’t have to be Gordon, but it did have to be somebody. Gordon was just the selected guy. I just don’t get your point.

"That kind of character was needed".
"It didn't have to be Gordon"
"But it did have to be somebody"

Notice you didn't say "Gordon himself was needed".

Freudian slip?

Because you just proved my point. Batman could ally himself with ANY character who is a good, honest, driven police officer or authority figure. It doesn't have to be Gordon. It is Gordon that Batman works with because he's the character they chose, and the character who it's always been, as you pointed out. But it doesn't have to be. The comics proved this when Gordon stepped down and his wife Sarah Essen took the reins for a while, and again when Gordon retired, Commissioner Akins became Commissioner and Batman had a similar "working relationship" with him as the one he had with Gordon.

Hehehe, you do realize that Catwoman’s type of relationship to Batman came before all of these guys?

Yes, I do. Interesting. I didn't realize your point was dependent on Catwoman being the "first" (which is not about need, it becomes about being "the first" or being about "tradition" then) semi-antagonist.

See, I didn't realize that, because when I asked you why she was neccessary, you said:

Catwoman = Batman's only tangential point with criminals that is not antangonic..

And that was your only justification of why she was "needed". And as we've discussed Melkay, when you say something, I assume that you mean it.

So it's about her being the first now?

Well guess what...you'd be wrong about that, too. Batman had a semi antagonist even before her, in comics history, who played both sides of the fence.

The Riddler and The Penguin didn’t even dream of collaborating with the Batman before Catwoman was developing her hate-love relationship to him.

Ah, but we weren't discussing who was the first, we were discussing why each character/element of the mythos was needed, I.E, irreplaceable.

They expanded that role, multiplying it in several SUBSEQUENT characters? Sure. Catwoman’s was first, and even today her relationship to him is still unique. See any scene of Catwoman vs. Talia, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Yes, Batman's overall relationship with Selina is somewhat unique, which I have not argued, but you still haven't explained why Selina or Catwoman specifically is "needed", and why another character couldn't conceivably fill that role. And by the way...some women have filled that role. Nocturna and Talia come to mind off the top of my head.

Uhhhh…. It’s a vast space in his own private property that remains secret to visitors and allows him to exit it by other parts of the grounds, allowing him to even have a parking space in it?

That makes it USEFUL. Not NEEDED.

Again, he can have far more useful bases situated in Gotham City, where he does his work, where he needs to be close to for his mission, not miles from it.

Also, explain to me why he has to have a vast space that is a dark, damp cave, as opposed to say, a brightly lit underground garage.

He doesn't.

The cave itself is not a need.

The Batman’s mythos need super-villains

No it doesn't. It has them, and they enhance it (like Robin does), but it doesn't need them. Supervillains certainly enhance the mythology, but Batman works just fine fighting the mob, normal evil people, etc.

and Batman’s specific brand of super-villains is comprised of characters that mirror some aspect of his character, in one or more ways.
The Joker is the one that does this in the most evident and diverse way, he’s the one who mirror the biggest number of Batman’s traits. (chaos vs. order; id vs. super-ego; both were made into what they are by traumatic events; Batman has a double identity, Joker only one; they’re both obsessed about each other; Joker’s the one supervillain who has done more damage in Bruce’s life; their visualities are entirely contrasting, being the Joker a subversion of an icon of innocence, while Batman is a good character that uses an icon of terror; etc., etc., etc.)

None of that is "needed". It just enhances the mythology.

So, if Batman needs super-villains and the best one at what he does is the Joker, I’d say that’s what makes the Joker necessary. He’s the optimal bat-supervillain. It all comes down to synthesis and utility once again.

That doesn't tell me why he's needed. It tells me why you think he's a valuable character, but not a "need".

I could create a character like The Joker, name him something lame like "Snidely Whiplash", and he could fill much the same role as The Joker ,making him obsolete.

And if this character had existed from the beginning, no one would bat an eye.

But I thought you said The Joker was "needed".

Don’t put words in my mouth. The Joker is not the epitome of Batman’s foes because he is the longest running and most used villain. It’s because all the things I said above.

And why is he "needed"?

 

[Melkay]

What, you never heard of on-the-job training? This is the very foundation of the Master/Apprentice relationship. When a carpenter takes on an apprentice he doesn't send him off to tibet to learn how to use a table saw. He trains him in the shop. On the job. The kid starts off doing small jobs, being just an assistant. Eventually, as his skills grow, his responsibilities do too.

Good Lord.
Good Holy Lord....

I get you may want to win the argument at all costs, but are you REALL comparing Batman's job to the job of A CARPENTER?
Being a vigilante in Gotham... one who works like Bruce does, without gund and without killing anyone... is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs ever. He does things that not even an entire police department can do, he has almost unlimited resource and to make things worse: if he dies, nobody is going to replace him because nobody is as skilled as he is.
You should compare it to something like an astronaut. Would you give on the job training to an astronaut?
No, you wouldn't. You spend months, maybe even years, training this one guy before he goes to space, because there any little mistake can cost him not only his goals but also his life and the life of his team.

"Training Robin on the stop", pfff.... when you go to Arkham, ask if they can put you on Saint's cell.

Yeah, and if he doesn't have the supervision of a master like Batman, that's exactly what he'd do.

What is Batman going to do, do his job for him? Not even Batman has enought trouble trying to save his own ass, he would also be worried by the kid's life.
Incredible.

Isn't that's why it's compelling?

No, it's dissapointing, because they turned an incredibly good portrayal into an incongruent one, and a critical eye will always notice that they're sacrificing the coherence of the personality to introduce a guy made to be relatable to a younger audience. It is contrived, and you feel they're taking you for an idiot if you're supposed to buy that.

Because you can question what in the hell Batman is doing? If he's making the right decision or not? I think if I was writing it I would present it as a choice that Batman makes, believing it's the only way to save the kid.

I can buy that when Batman chooses to keep saving the Joker's life, because I know he's adamant about not taking a life. When Batman makes a mistake, a controversial one for that matter, it must be within the boundaries of his own psychological construction.

Even if you do like it, you can't deny it's contradictory. If you're arguing that it doesn't bother you how contradictory it is, that's another discussion.

Especially since the kid is basically him. I think that Batman eventually facing this orphan, Dick Grayson, is about making some measure of peace with that little boy that he used to be, and the weird trajectory his own life has taken.

If he feels identified with kid, wouldn't he get overly-protective with him, trying to provide him the fairly normal he didn't have, or trying to make him more the man he would want to be (the pure hero Harvey Dent) instead of himself (the tortured vigilante)?
You're making wild assumptions here, taking for granted too many things that just don't fit.

Dick is a unique situation, and if Bruce sees himself when he sees Dick, why in the hell would he toss him into an orphanage? He adopts him because it's him, all over again. What happened to Dick and his parents is personal for Bruce.

Because it's better to keep him close where he can protect him, than letting him run off and get himself killed?

Letting him run? Bruce doesn't have to go with the reformatory (and he should, since he's a kid out of control). He can even adopt the kid if he wants, allowing him to live with him. Maybe hiring some people to take care of the kid, give him a good life, pay some therapists, become his fried... But lettinng him put on a suit to fight criminals is NOT helping the kid. It's helping himself.
And, as we've seen before, Bruce would rather lose his own life than risk Robin's life. And that is a sentiment that should've become stronger after Todd's death.

Why would he put Dick in a reformatory? Alfred could have done that to Bruce, but he didn't.

1. Bruce was 25 (or 29 in Nolan's version) and completely responsible for his own acts.
2. Bruce was more than prepared for the job, something Dick could not ever accomplish on his own.
3. Alfred is an enabler, a character completely different from Bruce. He is not as stubborn as Bruce is. And he doesn't carry Bruce's traumas about the lose of human life. Maybe Alfred would've killed the Joker if he had to face so much pressure as Bruce has.

Jason and Tim, their stories are different and they're the ones that Batman is usually more resistant to, because they aren't Dick and it isn't the same situation.

Which makes their recruitment all the more unbelievable. None of them had enough reasons to convince Bruce. Especially Tim, after Jason's death.

Because he doesn't want a partner. He adopts Dick because when he sees the kid he feels that he has to. Right or wrong, it's what his heart moves him to do.

As I said before, adopting the kid and providing him with proffesional and unprofessional help, doesn't equate to bringing him to the streets to fight thugs and super-villain. Being around Bruce can be great, but being around Batman can be traumatic and life-threatening.

That's a personal limitation on your part, and is utterly irrelevant to the larger picture, as the world, thank God, does not revolve around your limited intellect.

Read what I've said above about all the other options that are more in touch with Bruce's actual personality. If you have a shot a redemption, you will realize that you are actually the one with the narrow perspective and the limited intellect, embodying with some of your posts (Batman a Carpenter?!) the most rigid aspects of the most zealous purist.... taking for granted what you're fed with.

Again, on the job training, smartass.

Astronauts Keyser-boy... Astronauts .

You have utterly no concept of the word "apprentice" or what it means. I realize that this is because in the modern world it's alien to most people, especially younger folks, but have you ever heard of a "master electrician" or a "master plumber" or some such?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Oh God.... now Batman's like a part-time plumber, part-time electrician. t:

I suppose some of those electric toilet are potentially life-threatening.

Congratulations, Suchi, now you have touched rock bottom: You cannot possibly ge any dumber, can you?

Do all of Batman's decisions reflect an entirely rational frame of mind? Is it rational to dress up like a bat and beat the snot out of people in the night? Come on, now.

Not at all, it is irrational to keep sparing the Joker's life, as it is risking one's life to fight crime. But at least that irrationaliy has the same pattern: preserving human life. And any newbie can tell you that. I've come to the conclusion that you know this and you're either being a demagogue, or you're devoid of any actual brain cells.

Who is typing your posts?

Who are you to talk to me about logic? You wouldn't know logic if it crawled up your ass and found a polyp. First of all, Dick doesn't generally disobey or annoy Batman. That's Jason Todd.

Stop making it so easy, please.
Do you...
a) want me to quote some of the moments where both Grayson and Drake have disobeyed Batman?
b) Or do you prefer to backtrack a little and define what "generally" means? How many times does it have to be to be called "generally"? And where did I say the quantity of those times?

Or, option c): you can tell me when you get tired of me verbally *****slaping you.

Secondly, as I've already covered... the nature of apprentice means that he learns on-the-job.

I hope that after this post you won't ever write the words "on-the-job". Asinine lack of logic makes my eyes hurt.

Oh, and get a Neil Armstrong action figure. Just to remind you how stupid you once were.

Is he out there fighting the Joker right away? Hell no. There are times when Bruce would leave Dick out of it. But Dick could sure practice on some muggers, don't you think? Or covering the front door while Batman goes in the back and kicks the crap out of some guys? That's how apprentice works. You don't get in on the hard work right away.

Tell that to Jason Todd.
Or to every super-villain that has faced Robin alone. Two-Face and his thugs, for example. Or Shadowsnake.

Or better yet, tell that to the idiotic writers that made Batman adopt another Robin AFTER Jason Todd's brutal and untimely death.

"Who cares?" Amazing. You've gone from "Batman cares too much about children to risk their lives in combat" to, "Batman shouldn't care if this kid goes out and gets himself killed."

Your idiotness is reaching critical mass, now you've lost your ability to read. I said...

"Batman has to put away criminals all the time. Sadly, this kid shouldn't be the exception.".... the same super-villains that Batman locks to prevent them from taking vengeful actions against others (Two-Face, Freeze, etc.) but who he cares enough about to not kill them in the process, just handing them to the authorities. If he is skilled enough to prevent those dangerous criminals from dying, how cannot he prevent a boy from doing crazy things?
If in the movie he avoided an unmovable Joker in the middle of the street, or saved his life after the crazy was laughing as he fell... how is he not going to be able to put this kid away in a safe place?

Batman is smart enough to realize that hanging around with him IS NOT a safe place.

Seriously, get a doctor. Critical mass.

Which one of us is not making sense here? Here's a hint: his name starts with "M" and ends in "elkay."

hahahahaha! You know what? Forget about the doctor. The idiotness must be impossible to reverse now.

(I miss the kids of my elementary school. They were so good at witty insults. And here I am, stuck with man-child Sushi. *sighs* )

Um... what? I think you're mistaken. I'm not ignoring the dangers at all.

GOOD! Finally, we're having a turnaround here.

I'm just suggesting that Batman is the kind of guy who understands that life is full of dangers

Great, NOW we're talking...

and a bad parent is one who tries to baby their child and protect them from all of the scary things in life

..... uhuh... I think it is.....

eventually having to surrender their offspring to a world for which they are completely unprepared.

..... ugh, I don't like the way this is going...

A good parent is one who understands that danger is a part of life and rather than babying their child, at some point they understand that it's about preparing them to face the dangers.

.... good Lord.... he actually is going to say it....

DRIVING A CAR can get you killed if you do it wrong, but if you don't ever do it you never learn how.

..... fighting criminals.... fighting actual psychopatic mass-murderers.... fighting super-villains..... is something like "driving a car"....

This is an example, a METAPHOR, and I'm not meaning to suggest that fighting bad guys is like driving a car.

Only that you actually said it.

Simply that Batman understands that Dick has made a choice - and rather than trying to lock him up and keep him from doing it, he's going to teach him how to do it RIGHT... so that he can survive and be effective at it. How's THAT for logic, Admiral Loophole?

How's for that logic? HOW'S FOR THAT LOGIC? Didn't all the copycats in The Dark Knight "made a decision" too? Or better yet... do you realize that Dick Grayson was a teenager when he became Robin? And a troubled one for that matter?

If a teenager wants to start doing drugs, no matter what, should his father not only allow it, but also enable it in his own house?
If a jewish father in WWII felt that the Nazis would soon get to his house and take his familiy away to a concentration camp, should he put his kid in the basement and force him to work and starve so he can face the coming ordeals more prepared?
If a father who's also a football coach makes his quaterback son over-train so much tht the kid's leg bones break... is he justified because the kid is going to face multiple injuries in the field anyway and he should be prepared for that?

You're actually so completely mental and your perspective about parenthood is so horribly absurd that you are the FIRST PERSON I'm gonna tell these 3 advices....

1. Never become a Social Worker.
2. This is a tough one.... watch some Grey's Anatomy... you need to learn a little about absurd parent-child relationships.*
3. Never become a crime-fighter and NEVER partner with a teenager side-kick.

(* Usually, I would recommend LOST, but a blithering idiot like you you need some extra suffering. Hence, Grey's Anatomy.)

Whims? Tantrums? Out of control? You don't actually have any idea who Dick Grayson is, do you?

It's called hyperbole. Ask Saint about it. And show him your bit about "letting the kids go ahead with their choices". Or the part about "driving a car".
If he doesn't change his signature after that, then nothing will.

 

[Melkay]

Is this common for people to compose responses in Word first?
I've never heard of that.

English is not my first language and I feel far from confortable in it, and since I'm also pretty sloppy at typing, I need the instant grammar and spelling corrections.

All the same, parental relationships are laced with friction as well. There's no such thing as the perfect parent/child relationship. Disagreements will happen, as they should. In fact, every relationship has friction.

That's exactly the point. Disagreements are not exclusive to parental relationships, yet we see this one as such.

 

[The Guard]

Even if he did, you know how many actors that need a shot are able to do any kind of character to have a chance in Hollywood. It's not like he was a fan of the character or anything.

So he would have just been an actor with no integrity? Someone who takes on roles they don't value?

And well, we all know how Chris O'Donnell did after being Robin.

O'Donnell's career didn't fizzle out because he was Robin. It fizzled out because he wasn't that great an actor. And he still had, and has, a career most would kill for.

It is only after reading a lot of comics with Robin in them, and then without Robin in them, and the same movies with and without Robin, that I can say that Batman works a lot better alone as a disguised character, noly with the help of people like Alfred, Gordon, Luicius Fox, Harvey Dent, etc.

Sure, some Robinless stories are great. Some stories with Robin in them are also fantastic. I don't tend to put the thousands of Batman stories in a "rating system" when assessing each character's value as a character, I appreciate the mythos as a whole.

Batman works well in MANY capacities. That's what makes it a great mythos.

Underage sidekicks are a bad idea for the possibility of them being harmed as a result of putting them to fight crime. Writers could have not wrote those situation and to have Batman exposing xchildren to the very dangers he must face is still a bad idea.

Oh? Fascinating. Here are some other things that are generally considered a bad idea:

1. Fighting crime as a masked vigilante.
2. Becoming obsessed and worn down by this mission.
3. Working with your former enemies.
4. Leaving your city when it's in trouble.
5. Putting mind controlled assassins in charge of your city.
6. Spying on your fellow heroes with an artificial intelligence.

See, Batman has done all those things. A lot of things Batman does aren't exactly "right" or "a good idea".

So when you people say things like "Batman endangering Robin is a bad idea", I tend to laugh, because a lot of things he does aren't great ideas.

Function that might be played by any other character as well. As Rachel, a character never seen before, did in Nolan's movies. As what Rachel meant for Harvey Dent as a girlfriend, even when Dent's love in comic books is Gilda, as a wife.

That's true. How about that? I never argued that Robin was the ONLY character who could fill the role he does. I argued that the character can have value to the mythos because he fills this role.

Robin's possible functions can still be there without the amount of inconveniences the Robin character itself would mean for this franchise.

Not really. Not unless Catwoman becomes Batman's partner and Bruce decides to adopt her as his ward.

What the character has done in comics doesn't necessarily represents a "key" theme.

(Blinks)

Whaaaaaaaat?

The source material's themes aren't key to the mythology?

Luicius Fox has never been Batman's helper providing him weaponry.

No, but WayneTech has been.

Nolan has proven that what happens in comics can not only be re-arranged for the better but the whole original concept can be improved examining what it really is instead of copying what has happened in comic books only.

Nolan has proven that adaptions can work, and that some changes improve, and some detract from what the mythos has in it.

Robin might have worked on comics and might have a function, but for a cinematographic franchise is not a "must."

Almost nothing is a "must" for a cinema franchise.

Batman has a mission in life on crime-fighting that is not compatible with responsible fatherhood. Let alone fatherhood is not compatible with exposing your adopted son's life to criminals who have been evry close to take your own life.

That's true. How about that? That situation creates drama, conflict, and tension, and fantastic character elements. Batman's never been a particularly "normal" father. He's never been the best parent in the world.

And there's where a 12 years old kid cannot not be considered silly as something that could "help" you in that kind of things.

Robin is not your average 12 year old kid. There goes your argument there.

Gordon was by far a better kind of help and of course Luicius and the sonar machine.

Nonsense. Robin's been far more helpful to Batman over the years than Gordon or anyone who gives Batman his weapons has been. He's a far more "hands on" and integral kind of help. Gordon gives Batman information, much of which, he already knows. Robin saves peoples lives, and has saved Batman's life more than once.

And the sonar device is the kind of thing Batman should be able to appropriate for himself in the comics. And he does, if you'll notice, in the movie. Fox doesn't give him that, he gives him the basic technology.

And Nolan has precisely based the success of his adaptation in explaining things, not just let them be.

Nothing in the comics is "just let be". Just because e very other issue doens't feature the origin of some gadget does not mean that the majority of the elements of Batman's mythos have not been explained somewhere.

Prior to him, Batmobile was just a given. Now it has an explanation.

Horse****. The Batmobile has not just "existed" for years. Even as far back as the 40's, Batman was shown planning, building, and explaining the various elements of his arsenal, including the various Batmobiles.

And the Nolan Batmobile origin isn't new, either (Except for the nonsense about it being a water jumping bridge-building tank). Bruce "finding it" at Wayne Enterprises is an element found in ZERO HOUR tie in BATMAN #0 circa 1995 (amost ten years before Goyer "borrowed" the idea, and some others), as is the sequence of Bruce finding the cave again as an adult, and a number of other origin elements used in BATMAN BEGINS.

Ok, people won't connect Dick Grayson to Robin. Still Bruce Wayne would be unable to adopt him being single and having the fame he has provided to himself.

I'm sorry...a rich famous won't be able to adopt a kid because he has a public face to maintain?

How many adopted kids does Brad Pitt have again?

Another crazy idea: Bruce had to be trained until he was on his mid-twnties to be able to handle crime-fighting.

No, Bruce has to train until he was 25 until he got as good as he has. He has then kept training over the years. There's no "amount of training" where you are "able" to fight crime.

Robin reaches the same level by 12?

Why would he have to be on the same level as Batman? That's just silly.

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.

Yes, Nolan doesn't go in for those "cheap" plot devices like people quitting due to being easily disillusioned, main characters "dying", faking their deaths, people disguising themselves as someone else and revealing themselves to be a mastermind or...oh...wait...

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.

Had to do it?

I'd love to see you argue the majority of that one.

Batman's not skilled enough to drive PAST a police car instead of crushing it? Batman's not skilled enough to escape the cops behind him without dropping bombs in front of 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.

As discovered in TDK, Gotham is not an ideal place. I believe that's about all I need to say on the matter.

It definitively should be.

Should be based on what? Some "moral absolute" that Batman has never, ever had? Where is it written that this character, who has been shown putting people in danger and doing reckless things for decades...a character, mind you, who does these reckless and irresponsible things in his movies, would never do such a thing if things got bad enough?

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.

I would be fine with Dick Grayson appearing, helping Batman somehow, seeing the proper themes explored, and the subtle idea that perhaps Bruce will train him to be his ally.

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

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Another recent moment is when Bruce tells Tim he's adopted him. But there are many, many great "Batman and Robin" moments over the years.

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.

EXACTLY.

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.

This is what people don't seem to understand. No one who advocates Robin is saying that what Batman does by allowing sidekicks is ideal, or even all that smart. But it is dramatic, and very powerful.

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

True. We could go on and on and on and on about people Batman's let slip through the cracks.

 

[The Guard]

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...

So...instead of me believing that was your point of view, I'm somehow supposed to know...or believe...that you were PARAPHRASING other people's points of view, when you clearly made it look like your own statement?

Sorry, bub. That crow won't caw.

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?

I myself used the word "burden" when I corrected your statement. Of course Batman doesn't think it's a life others would envy and desire, and I never said that. Batman knows his life and mission is not suitable for everyone. But it is for some. And those people, he highly values.

Not at all... I'm talking about the inconvenience of them dying when executives don't feel confortable about fans reactions.

You're talking about a fictional character. And you're trying to tell me that it's inconvenient that this fictional character is subject to...story twists.

???

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.

First, Batman may not be killed off...but he has been subjected to fates worse than death for years. His back broken, his city taken over by a crazed assassin, his files used to take down the JLA, his city brought to its knees, his life taken apart by a childhood friend, framed for the murder of someone he loved, mindwiped, his inventions going nuts and threatening the world, being drugged and mind****ed and then retired...the loss of allies and friends...countless things.

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.

That's because they're fictional characters. It's generally not difficult to WRITE things happening to characters.

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.

I don't feel he should be in the film either. This debate has gone beyond that.

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.

Bruce Wayne trained Dick Grayson extensively, and continued training him as long as they were partners.

You have this baffling idea that someone would have to be AS GOOD as Batman in order to fight crime at all.

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.

I don't think any Batman stories, comic or otherwise, have ever truly taken "real world probabilities" into account on any tangible level. I think it's silly that anyone would expect that, from a comic or a movie. I think this is a silly question.

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?

We all know Batman is more skilled than Robin.

That was never what we were discussing in this particular point.

We were discussing whether Batman's allies face the same dangers he does.

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

Allow me to repeat myself.

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.

I think it's obvious that they also had an edge, like Batman, to help them survive.

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"?

That's not being a pain in the ass to Batman on any level. That was mildly annoying to him. And you're missing the point, because that is also not the norm in their relationship. I'm not saying that there's never static between Batman and Robin. But that's not the rule.

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.

No, you made a statement about how Batman was getting darker because of the DEATH IN THE FAMILY FOCUS. Because I asked you why you think he was getting darker.

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

And you said:

Because authors keep reminiscing "A Death in the Family" and Bruce's failures with both Dick and Barbara.

And you were wrong. That's not why the "family" centric stories have been darker. They've been darker because of what's happened to Batman himself.

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.

You said it in post #1269.

I said:
Originally Posted by The Guard:
People who say "Robin would make Batman lighter" must not get the point of either character very well.

To which you said, in post #1269:

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.

Which you are now claiming not to have said. If these are indeed not your words, then you must be simply stealing other people's words and using them as if they are your own.

Later, however, in the same post, you said a variation of the same thing:

People have made all sorts of things about this point... allow me to make it more clear: No, the character's origins are not relevant, but as I said before: with Robin, the results match the original intentions. Batman has evolved a great deal from its original premise... Robin has not. It's still there to "Make Batman lighter". It sucks but that's how it is.

And...you were wrong. Twice.

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.

1. Why would I care what Jeph Loeb has to say? He's a man who has proven he gets the basics of characters...and little else.

2. That's one writers assessment of Robin. Apparently Jeph Loeb is too stupid to see that Robin functions both as balance and legacy (which he does, and has for years), and therefore, his opinion means nothing to 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.

What does that have to do with whether or not he would let people fight with him to keep other innocent lives safe?

Batman does value life. He also values standing up for it, and people who do so. His allies are some of these people.

He just doesn't ahve the time to train any kid as a capable crime-fighter.

And yet he has had time over the years.

He has time to work at Wayne Enterprises, date movie stars, fight crime, research crime, and do god knows what else...and you're telling me that he wouldn't have time to train an ally?

Here's the thing, Melkay...

We've SEEN him training all of his allies. Parts of various comic book issues were dedicated to showing him training Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown, and Cassandra Cain. Batman even sent Tim Drake overseas to hone his skills...after initially training him at home.

The "training" theme is a constant in the mythos, and shows up often.

Read...a...comic.

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.

All of Batman's students have been dutiful, dedicated ones. Even Jason Todd showed an eagerness to train and learn more skills.

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.

What boy? You're just making stuff up now, aren't you?

Batman trains his people so well that he doesn't usually worry about if they can handle themselves. He trusts them implicitly. If he has reason to be concerned about whether they can handle a situation, then he asks them to hold back.

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.

What's your point? That's not Batman forbidding Tim to be Robin, Melkay, or not letting him fight crime, that's him asking Tim to hold back because of a particular dangerous situation. It's a scene that shows Batman cares about Tim, and in return, that Tim cares about Batman enough to risk his life for him.

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.

Tim Drake's Robin having his own title is proof of his immense popularity...not proof of a lack of it. The fact that for years he showed up in Batman comics as WELL as his own title, AND titles like YOUNG JUSTICE and TEEN TITANS is even more proof of the character's popularity. And the fact that Dick Grayson showed up in Batman titles, The Teen Titans, and other titles, is proof of HIS popularity as a character.