Right. So, why hasn't time passed for Batman? Or time passes selectively?
Obviously time has passed for Batman, and of course it passes selectively. He's the main character of a sprawling comic book mythology. But he's aged from 25 to his late thirties in most versions of the mythology. Right now he's nearing 40. I believe he's actually 38 currently.
When the modern Batman mythology began, that is, when Bruce became Batman, he was 25. When he took on Robin in Year Three, Dick Grayson was 12.
Let's say Batman is 38 now in current continuity for the sake of argument. That means about 13 years have passed since he became Batman, and ten since he took on Robin. That would make Dick about 22 now, which conveniently, is about what Dick Grayson is now in the comics. So they've both "aged" about the same in the modern mythology.
Selective aging, sure. They're comic book characters. But Bruce has aged about as much as Dick has.
Are you kidding? Drake is almost like a younger, happier and more hyperkinetic Dick Grayson. Batman treats him the same.
This belies a complete lack of understanding about the differences between the characters. Drake, if anything, is a far more serious and darker character than Grayson ever was. And they were roughly the same age when they became Robin. If anything, Tim was a bit older.
Batman does not treat Tim the same as he did Dick. Not at all. Tim Drake has more freedom to act on his own than Dick Grayson ever did at his age.
That's one.
In fact, I would argue that Drake is the less defined Robin of the series, having too many similarities to the early years Dick.
And you'd be wrong in that argument. Writers have defined and fleshed out Tim Drake more than Dick Grayson ever, ever was as Robin.
That's two.
Haha, what are you now, the Guard of the Past things, no matter how defective they are?
Methinks you're not worthy of calling him a lady. There are whiners on both sides. Before replying to this, I left a guy with the word "norom" written in his forehead. Whiners everywhere.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Go look up what it means.
I'm sorry...you "left a guy with the word "norom" written into his forehead"? Christ, Melkay, do you let your piddling message board antics define you as a person to that extent?
Of course... all logistic needs. They even have an intimidation purpose, widely argumented in the Batmobile thread. Take a look again. Did you notice you are agreeing with me?
Not so much, no. Logistics needs need not be filled by a "Batmobile". Are you really trying to tell me that Batman having a car that intimidates is a "need"?
That why I wrote the two other things apart from "help from the police". And they're not the only other two. You can ignore it at will if you want, I'll understand, I've had the lower hands in many debates before.
You did write two other things. I'll address them. Oh, and you say there's even more than that makes Gordon a "need" in the Batman mythology? Do tell.
representation of the ordinary good man, the virtuous that believes in Batman no matter what;
1. There's nothing ordinary about Gordon. Nothing.
2. Almost ANYONE could represent the "good man". And many have over the years. Gordon is not speficically "needed" for this element to exist.
3. Gordon has not always believed in Batman no matter what. Read KNIGHTFALL for starters, and the storylines where Gordon and Batman were barely speaking because Gordon was questioning the Dark Knight's methods. And again, this "I believe in Batman no matter what" angle does not need to be filled only by a character specific to James Gordon.
As that stupid little plot device kid in BATMAN BEGINS showed us so well.
If you want to rewrite that as "not always antagonistic", be my guest. You still made my point.
Oh...so you admit that Catwoman is sometimes antagonistic and sometimes not, and that she fulfills the need of having that archetype, and you feel she is neccessary to the mythology because no one else does this for Batman:
Oh, wait...
Ra's Al Ghul
Talia Al Ghul.
The Riddler.
The Penguin.
Anarky.
Jason Todd.
All of these characters have helped Batman before, and even been on his side from time to time.
Catwoman is valuable to the mythology because she's a mirror-image love interest/life interest for Batman. She's a dark "copycat", and they share a tragic nature. You could have picked the simplest explanations for why she's neccessary, but you had to get clever and pretend she's the only non-sometimes-antagonistic character in his mythos, and it made you look stupid.
Read a comic book, Melkay. I won't count this one against you in my growing list of stuff you're just flat out WRONG about in regard to the mythology, but read a comic book.
Same case. Read, little Guard, read. Logistics is only ONE of the reasons. And logistics are not about necessity, but rather about "utility".
More childish, veiled insults. Uh oh, he's getting desperate. Same case as what? The Batmobile? Logistics? Or something being intimidating? Because those are the two reasons you've-OHHH, it's about utility.
Then explain to me why Batman's base of operations has to be a CAVE to fulfill the "utility" factor.
Oh. It doesn't.
You're so full of it. It's clear that, despite your delusions otherwise, you just like these elements because you've become familiar with them and because they are, despite not being NECCESSARY, valuable long-running characters and elements to the mythology, because they're great, relatively unique concepts.
Ironically, the same basic reason that you are accusing people who value Robin of having, and deriding as baseless.
The second. The many etceteras.
Uh...Melkay...The Joker is not the only character who has those elements in the Batman mythology. He's just the most classic and well known. Many Batman villains over the years have been about creating chaos and killing people and wreaking havoc in Gotham.
So what makes The Joker neccessary? If you know, you should be able to explain it.
Again... not about the theme... but about the relationship.
Either you had a long day or you're just not very clever.
Oh look, he made another broad statement that he didn't back up, hoping to disguise it with yet another veiled insult. Gotta be honest Melkay, when people are too lazy to elaborate on their points, I tend to believe they're blowing smoke. So thrill me with your intelligence: What about The Joker's relationship with Batman makes the concept of The Joker "needed"? What elements does The Joker have that NO OTHER CHARACTER could possibly have?
His gimmick? The fact that he's about "jokes"?
No, that can't be it, because you yourself seem to have written that it was not about themes... but about relationships.
Care to explain?
But he is the one who represents them the most, the epitome of the super-villain who's completely opposite to Batman.
Yeah. That's because he's the longest running and most used Batman villain. That's because he's traditionally been that role. But...if that angle isn't good enough for Robin to be a valid character, and "needed", why is that good enough for The Joker to be?
Why is The Joker completely opposite of Batman? Is The Joker's name "Not Batman"? Help me out here. And then, once you're done with explaining that, explain how that's NEEDED to exist in the context of "The Joker", and not just appreciated because it's been around for a long time.
And I've gotta be honest, you'd best not be relying on "The Joker kills people, Batman saves them" or "The Joker's zany and The Batman is grim and serious" level stuff.
Go to it.
And because you asked for him, not anyone else. I can't spell it out about every character out there just for you. Not for free, at least.
See, you say that, I just hear you say "I can't". How about you just spell it out for The Joker. Unless you can't.
Ok, I get you're not very clever, but you could at least save you all the typing and read what I've been saying in all the previous posts. And the rest of the others that talkes against the inclusion of Robin. Please. I recommend you El Payaso's post, or CFE little and moderate post about not aving Robin this time around. Plenty of reasons, all having to do with contradiction.
Look folks. Another veiled insult that he uses to avoid responding to someone asking him to clarify his point!
Yeah, I'm taking the time to respond to your statements. I'm not going to read through 33 pages of posts to find a few points someone else made. How about you act like a concscientious debator and actually back up your points in the context of this debate?
How...Melkay, do you think Robin contradicts Batman?
Unless you can't explain that either.
I'm just kidding Melkay. Since you're so reliant on someone else's arguments, I went back and read their posts.
One of El Pasayo's point seems to amount to "Batman isn't about leading a normal life."
Well, there's nothing normal about the concept of a teenage sidekick, so El Pasayo's point is absurd, at best.
El Pasayo also said this:
The mere concept of a colorful kid next to the dark hero is. Batman has been more successful as a dark realistic character; an underage next to him, as able to fight crime as he is strips him from those valuables characteristics.
Which is just plain wrong. Batman has worked as a dark character with a brighter, more hopeful concept like Robin around him for years. In fact, Batman is currently darker than he's ever been. So Pasayo's ridiculous statement about how Robin strips these "valuable characteristics" from Batman is simply incorrect, and unfounded, and lazily researched, it seems.
His other argument amounts to "People might guess Bruce and Dick are Batman and Robin". And I already addressed that point. It's down to suspension of disbelief, and being suspected of something doesn't mean you'll be proven to be guilty of that. Bruce and Dick have been suspected of being Batman and Robin and thrown the public off many times in the comics.
He also raises the point that Batman should not be about fatherhood, forgetting, I suppose, that Batman has had that as one of his themes since 1940.
He also talks about how Batman is not about exposing kids to danger...despite the fact that for 60 years...Batman has done just that on some level.
He also came up with "Batman doesn't need help". Which is arguable. Clearly he has often needed help, because that's what the mythos shows us.
He talks about the police might be after Batman if he has a kid working with him. This creates a dramatic conflict, so I fail to see how this is a bad thing. And he's going to have the cops after him regardless, isn't he?
He also came up with "it might not work on film". That's hardly an argument against translating a concept. Because guess what...it might.
He also came up with "Robin is the reason the prior films sucked". Which is patently untrue. Without the element of Robin and the drama he brought, the films would likely have been much cheesier and sillier. I can elaborate if you wish.
CFE's post showed that he appreciates Robin as a character and the cornerstone of the Batman mythology. So I wouldn't be too quick to rely on his argument as your own. His posts indicate that Robin would be something of a gimmick. Couldn't anything be described as a "gimmick"?
So yeah. El Pasayo and CFE's posts didn't help me understand why any of your ideas about contradiction to Batman's character would be valid.
So uh, you got anything of your own, or are you going to rely on their very shortsighted, flawed, logic?
Yes.
Nice nickname, though. Take care.
