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

[The Guard]

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

The concept of Robin HAS worked in live-action film. The portions with Dick Grayson/Robin and his evolution were some of the few good parts of BATMAN FOREVER. They may have been all that made the film bearable. And the drama brought by the "family" aspect in BATMAN & ROBIN and their strained relationship was the ONLY good part of that film.

You're confusing content and tone.

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

The unchanged origin works just fine. There are no inconsistencies inherent. You just want there to be. Some of you just lack imagination.

Those are only two. Another two could be...

ARKHAM ASYLUM &...
THE KILLING JOKE.

Which don't take place before Robin existed.

ARKHAM ASYLUM isn't about Batman's family and friends, Melkay. It's a personal psychological tale about Batman and the crazy people he opposes, and his similarities and differences with them. It's about a man being alone with himself. There's no reason for Robin to be present in the story.

Likewise, THE KILLING JOKE is also a very personal and private story between Batman, The Joker, and James Gordon. It's about men being alone with their demons and the impact that this has on them. There's no real story reason for Robin to show up.

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

A DEATH IN THE FAMILY
A LONELY PLACE OF DYING

These are indeed fantastic Robin-centric stories. I'm glad you've finally recognized these as key Batman stories.

While we're at it, let's add ROBIN: YEAR ONE to the list, for it's fantastic take on a young Dick Grayson and Batman's relationship with Dick, Alfred, Gordon and Two-Face.

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

Ten months of no Robin, yes, VS...wait for it...816 months of Robin and other allies in multiple titles, movies, TV shows, and other media.

Your "ten months" is also ten months with no relevant Alfred
characterization, no Batcave, no Batmobile, no Joker, no Catwoman, no Bat-Signal, or other classic villains sans Hugo Strange. Ten months of a Batman who killed criminals and was a shadow of the character we've come to know.

Hardly the definitive period of Batman comics.

You going "But Robin wasn't there at the beginning" is a hollow argument against the character because hardly ANYTHING other than Batman himself was there at the beginning.

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

TLH is entertaining, but overrated. You brought it up first.

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

No, I don't believe they're all cornerstones to the Batman mythology.

Neither do I believe that HUSH is a cornerstone of anything mythological. Sure, it repeats a lot of it, and features almost every major element, but you brought up HUSH, not me. I'm simply pointing out that, yet again, in a project you bring up, is the concept of Robin largely present.

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

Loeb's only strength is repeating what some other writer did before him, and doing so no more cleverly, while making up his own farfetched story with forced dramatic twists. He "honors" the mythology, but he does not improve on it.

Almost nothing he did in HUSH was a new or interesting idea, save Thomas Elliot and the Jason Todd element, and what happened with The Riddler and Batman's identity.

Which were.... protecting the boys life?

No. The mistakes Batman is trying to avoid have to do with dictating what Robin can or can't do, and not allowing Robin to influence his emotional state. That was his mistake with Dick, who personally wanted out of Batman's shadow because he was growing older and more self-reliant, but as a member of the dynamic duo, also had a problem with Batman's methods, and his need to control others.

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

Batman has never in the comics had a "Don't go into battle with others who value your mission" tenet. Never.

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

They aren't playing at vigilante. They are vigilantes. They're very capable people with an edge Batman himself has taught them and helped them to perfect. I'll give you back your suspension of disbelief, but I will ask that you grow an imagination.

Which is EXACTLY what I mean.

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

Jason and Barbara weren't undertrained. I'm not sure where you're getting that silly idea.

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

Again with the silly idea that a costumed vigilante would have to be AS GOOD as Batman to fight most crime in Gotham.

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

Which they, for the most part, do these days. So what's your issue? Oh, your issue is that sometimes, instead of leaving them on their own, he's there to protect them.

And I'm the one with the silly questions.

Most of the time.

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

I think you know very well what I mean by hero.

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

How is being trusted with more freedom "worse"?

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

I own SUB ZERO. As I've pointed out to you once before, I have added up the screentime, and I know who has the majority of the story. You said "energy". Did you mean "screentime"?

Did The Joker and Harvey Dent take "energy" away from Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT?

As I pointed out earlier, Tim Drake differs, according to Jeph Loeb. Not the only thing were he differs with you, apparently.

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

Maybe Loeb should read a comic.

Maybe you should. Bruce Wayne IS Tim Drake's father now. I believe that when Tim said this in the comics, Bruce was not.

I'll re-quote, just for you:

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

And I'll point out again that if Jeph Loeb is too stupid or clueless about Batman's mythology that he doesn't realize that Robin is very much both...then he shouldn't be making statements about the character.

I'll also point out that Jeph Loeb recently got fired from HEROES, one of the worst-written shows on television (because of his writing), because he couldn't even make that show's fanbase satisfied with soap opera superhero stories, even when he ripped off other superhero stories to do so.

I don't think I care what he says all that much.

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

No. Robin was a main character for decades. "Batman and Robin" isn't just the name of a Joel Schumacher film, it's an idea. All of Batman's characters are capable of functioning both as main characters, supporting characters, and cameos. I don't like to limit them, or the structure of their stories.

Ok, I've gathered almost all your longevity lines to make a point... I never said he hasn't been popular... or not important....

So...by reposting this...

"He's not made to work along with the Bat? And yet he has...for 60 years...worked along with the bat. And it's worked."

"If we go to "tradition" and "old presence in comics", your argument against Robin's validity disappears. Because Robin's been a key component of the mythology for 60 years now."

"Melkay...Robin's been around for 60 years. Sixty years of presence in Batman stories outweights your precious "four" YEAR ONE/ELSEWORLDS style examples."

"Robin has been shown to have an edge that helps him to survive for 60 years."

"You are trying to tell us that what he wouldn't do contradicts what he has actually been doing, and been portrayed to do...for 60 years."

You've highlighted your absurd point of view for everyone to see...again?

I never said that you said Robin wasn't popular or important. I pointed out that you saying that Batman "wouldn't" do something that he's been shown to do for almost 70 years now is ABSURD.

Because he's been SHOWN to do just what you say he wouldn't...for again, almost 70 years.

what I said is that he wasn't portraying well Batman's attitude towards him.

Seems to me that Batman's actual attitude toward Robin for almost 70 years has been that he appreciates him and values his contribution to the mission.

I'm not arguing for presence or trascendence. Those things can be done and still be wrong. I'm arguing against quality... not quantity. Since quantity and longevity is undeniable you keep going back to it because, as your comfort zone... all that I'm saying is that it is harmful for a good portrayal of Batman.

No, I could very much rely on just a few quality Robin stories.

I'm relying on the 70 years of Batman doing what you claim he would not do to specifically refute your point about "contradictions" in Batman's character.

Because you keep going back to silly ass statements like "But...but Batman wouldn't DO that".

Despite the fact that he HAS done that. For almost 70 years.

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

Yes...just like all those other major elements of the Batman movies that aren't found in the comics first and turned into fantastic cinema.

Oh...wait...

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

And in doing so, you're clearly omitted other celebrated stories that include Robin.

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

Yes. Let's.

Who else wants to bring the Silver Age into this?

And yet that was the continuity in which Robin was created, and many Robin defenders here keep getting back to it.

That's because you insisted on originally bringing that era up.

The problem is that the most celebrated storylines belong to the Modern Mythos... but within the Modern Mythos are many stories with subpar quality.

Nope. There are far more subpar and downright bad stories in the older Batman comics than the modern ones. Much simpler, less interesting, and less intelligently written stories exist in older comics than you will find in the modern mythos. Modern mythology has the most rounded, mature perspective of Batman and his mythology by a long shot.

But hey, if need by, I can argue for Robin's relevance in any era, because it's always been there.

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

No they don't. That Wikipedia entry says NOTHING about Tim Drake being lighter than Dick Grayson.

It’s not about being gay… it’s about being blinded by empathy. It’s about being irresponsible and soft.

Batman has FREQUENTLY been irresponsible and "soft", even in the Nolan movies. It is part of his character. He's not The Punisher.

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.

Hehe.

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.

Exactly.

First of all, Dick doesn't generally disobey or annoy Batman. That's Jason Todd.

True. And even then, Jason didn't disobey Batman constantly or anything like that. He was just a bit reckless from time to time.

"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."

Hehe.

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?).

Because Batman thought he could help Jason, because Jason needed help. He was headed down the wrong path. He thought he had potential, and because he is a sucker for lost causes. He always has been. This is a theme of his mythology.

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.

It's not flawed at all. When Jason died, Batman became more brutal, and began to lose his humanity. Tim Drake noticed this, and reasoned that Batman, like anyone, needs a moral voice to keep him from going over the edge. That is one of Robin's functions. Tim valued Batman so much that he wanted to be that moral voice. Robin, among other things, keeps Batman in check.

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?

No...being abandoned and labeled and full of anger and a burning desire for revenge would have made Dick dead. Without Batman's guidance, he would have gone out and tried to take revenge, and he would have been killed at some point, as the stories show us. That, or he would have taken revenge, and darkened his soul irreversibly in the process.

 

[Crook]

The unchanged origin works just fine. There are no inconsistencies inherent. You just want there to be. Some of you just lack imagination.

I resent that. I absolutely love Robin as a character, I have no problem at all with how he fits into the mythos....but the age he starts off as a costumed vigilante will always be a problem for me.

It is quite possibly the most absurd thing I can think of from the Batman world. Yes, more bizarre than a man falling in bleached chemicals, a guy that transforms from clay, an immortal megalomaniac...all of it. From what I've gathered, it is still canon that Robin starts off at around 12-13, yes?

*I* have a 12 year-old sister, and I've met all her friends, boys and girls alike. No training in the world would make me believe they could hold their own against several grown adults with weapons. Especially day in and day out. Before you bring it up, yes, I have met some talented youngsters around that age who are very proficient in martial arts. Regardless of skill, their stature and strength at that age, I feel, aren't up to par for the vigilante life.

I've got no issue with Dick being an orphan, taken up by Bruce, and start training at that age. But, the moment he puts on a costume and starts fighting alongside Bats, Dick should at least be 16-17. At least.

This has little to do with having imagination. Well...I mean, it could....but you know what I mean.

 

[Melkay]

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.

No, because the mantle of Robin has been passing around. You didn't get my point. The writers found a very neaty way of making Robin be 12 AGAIN and start getting older from there.

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.

Hahahaha.... take a look at the thread's title.
Surprise.

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.

I am proving your point. He was over protective with Dick, then he Todd died in his arms, and instead of being... well, Batman... he becomes less protective of the new Robin.

Except for all the moments like that little quote I posted, the one about Batman telling Tim to stay home, prefering to lose his life than risk his. And he still manages to ... not be Batman once again, leaving Tim on his own.
What a weird guy.... or better, what a bunch of lame writers.

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?

I give you some time to reflect, and you completely waste it.

Read closely: I have always... always... been talking about Robin's initial moments... those moments when the character is presented and Batman takes him, contradicting what he has established previously about his psychology.
Look for my reply to Saint and read the part about Silver Age vs. Modern comics.

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".

Read the part when I mentioned "utility". He needs means of transportation to get around fighting crime. Most of all other features of the Batmobile are useful too, like being stealth, the different devises and
instantly being recognized with the Batman, making him more of a symbol and remembering criminals why they should be afraid of him.

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

As an excuse for losing an argument, yes.

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

When you were using false information it seemed it mattered to you. You seemed to believe that it was relevant to the discussion, since you were the one who brought it up. It's okay if you didn't, but if you're going to backtrack do it in a classier way, don't you think?

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.

Yes, I admit I misspoke (see? class). And none of those honest policemen were Police Commissioners when Batman started out.

"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.

Not at all, I (somewhat akwardly) explained what Gordon stood for in the narrative. It could be anyone, and one would have to be selected. It was Gordon. That's how the character started, and to simply get rid of him would lower the quality of the narrative. Changing Gordon just for change's sake would be silly, when they could benefit of all the years of development and keep him in a main role. "Utility" again.

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.

Curiously, you seem to be defining characters by their names and not by their roles in the story.

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.

I misspoke again, I could have deleted the "only", seeing now that you seem to believe character are defined at some point AFTER their initial moments.
Except that Catwoman did enrich Batman in that way since her initial moments.... and since she's the one who has been doing it the most, since the beginning, then she should be the best at it. "Utility", again.

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.

No, it's not about being the first... it's about been the longest-running. Writers can benefit of all the years of development, dynamic and investment in the character. "Utility".

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.

Read above.

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.

I'm gonna make a wild assumption that your brain CAN process logic.

She is needed because she the narrative is enriched by that role. That role needs a character to be exploited. Since she has been the longest-running character to be in that role, she is the best suited to fit it, for the reasons explained two quotes above. Therefore, another character can fill the role, but we should ask ourselves if that's a useful. Writers can remove her or change her from her role, but they would need to start over the dynamic with one new character... a valid thing to do, but with the perils of getting redundant.
Catwoman =/= Talia because her ideals and methods are in direct contrast to Batman's, as opposed to Talia who is just rather cynic and maybe guilty by association to her father. That's why Catwoman exploits better the hate-forbidden_love angle, but Talia is unique because, among other things, she knew Batman's identity from the start (allowing some narrative possibilities as the Son Of The Demon storyline, one I also believed to have not handled well enough Bruce's pesonality).

That makes it USEFUL. Not NEEDED.

It depend on how you see it. Utility is as important to Bruce's objectives as anything else. See... he could be crippled and fighting super-villains on a wheelchair, right? He doesn't need neither his car nor his legs.
Pushing it further, we would realize that he doesn't even need his double-identity to fight crime. And who cares about all the criminals who get to his house or kidnapp his loved ones looking for revenge? Not him, he's got his wheelchair.
And who says he needs to live, more than one day at least? The story could be just about a guy without a mask in a wheelchair that went to an ally to fight criminals. He got stabbed and died, and the rest of the following comic issues would just be about people from Gotham going to his grave and silently honoring his memory.
As long as we have a story, nothing is needed, right?
The Universe is not needed.

......... I hope you realize that it all comes down to expectations... if you define your story about being the story of Batman, then every other element is needed as it enriches Batman in the best possible way. I define what is needed by "utility", by what gives the story the best possible elements.

The question is, what is desirable... Robin contributes with lots of things to the Batman mythos but some of them may take protagonism away from Batman, or add certain inconsistencies to his character. The moment you realize that, you make a judgement about the character... if you think his contributions are valuable enough to forgive his flaws without changing them, then it's alright. It's a valid choice. I prefer the alternative: either changing the contradictory elements or not having him at all.

This may be the point where we actually agree to disagree, but at least I would respect your opinion. I only keep debating because you refuse to see the flaws I don't like.

Don't worry... every beginning has an end. We will end this before New Year's Eve.

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.

And he does. He does have downtown bases. Oracle's Clock Tower is one of them. But the cave beneath the manor is the most useful, because being farther from town it's harder to be found, and because it allows him to keep his identity better when he has to arrive to the scene and leave suddenly from it. (many Batman Begins scenes come to mind)

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.

One of Batman's most interesting and integral elements is that his abnormal presence attracted the super-villain freaks to reigning in Gotham. He is a sort of inspiration or catalyst for many of them. I say that's an integral, desirable and COHERENT aspect of the mythos, but if you don't think that, please, check my concept of need above.

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.

Before I was joking, but now I've realized you actually define characters by their name, and not the role they occupy.

Do this: Go to Arkham, look for cell that has both Saint and Sushi in it, lock yourself in with them and throw the key through the bars of the window.


Problem solved, people. You can all make me a statue later.

 

[Melkay]

Sorry, bub. That crow won't caw.

You go all the way back to the beginning of the debate, at least when I came in. It started with StorminNorman.

Batman knows his life and mission is not suitable for everyone. But it is for some. And those people, he highly values.

One would think those people were all prepared and not underage. Batman's a bastard.

Oh, and he should train Alfred too... he values him a lot, and don't worry about him being too old. Who cares about age anyway? Not me, I don't want to be acussed of ageist.

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.

No, I'm saying that these story twists shouldn't be completely dependant of fans reactions.

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.

I'm not pitying him. I'm saying he's still there. What works for him doesn't work for any other character. The title is his name for Christ's sake. No wonder why you can't get the things you read in comics if you don't know how to read forum posts either.

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

Like, case in point: dying.
Oh no, wait... they can't do that with Batman.
Hmmmm, you almost had a point there. Wise up, arguments are a precious thing, you can't afford losing more of them.

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

Speak for yourself, you're the one arguing about moronic stuff like the concept of necessity, and I'm the one who had to synthetise and redirect that to ROBIN. I'm still arguing for Robin on film, but if you want too keep expanding the posts until exhaustion, I will keep humoring you.

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.

Batman barely can keep himself alive sometimes. And putting Robin on the batttlefiled would be a great worry and another distraction for him, not to mention he would have to do the kid's job from time to time. Alfred said that to Tim in the quotes I posted.

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.

That's exactly my argument when I try to convince people that Batman should suddenly gain superpowers... like, shooting laser beams from his eyes and stuff.


(plausibility it's an important aspect of Batman, and not taking that into account would be a mistake. we may have Ra's and Lazarus pit but we also have humans dying, having extensive injuries from accidents, not making feats that are beyond their abilities. how big suspension of disbelief must be to accept Robin's premise can be a subjective thing. here we can also agree to disagree.)

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.

They do, since they're around him in his fights (and sometimes on their own) he wouldn't be able to give them the proper training, which for himhas proven to be "just enough" (I remember a certain broken back).

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.

All great qualities. But not nearly enough. Batman's history as a solo crime-fighter has shown they need the training.

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.

And what discovering Batman's identity? It's not a problem to be solved?
What about disobedience? Disobedience was also Robin "mildly annoying" Batman? Or do you share Sushi's school of thought of seeing Robin as not disobeying enough?
Unreal.

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.

Fool of me who thought that the discussion was still pertinent to Robin and the side-kicks. I had forgotten about your style of debate.
Allow me to rephrase, from the beginning... some peole think Robin is there to make Batman lighter, and that would have been the case, if it wasn't for all the numerous not necessarilly related tragic cirumstances.
Life su**s.

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.

Not really. Here is where the coherences kicks in. The darker and more serious Batman would be too obsessed about preventing death for allowing Tim Drake become Robin. That was the case when he showed his extreme coyness about letting Drake become the boy wonder.
The later Batman didn't have any trouble with letting Robin be on his own, refelcting how he had solved the over-protective and authoritative traits that broke his partnership with Dick.
Overall, he may not be lighter, but you can't say Robin hasn't made his part in some aspects. The pro-Robin crowd has a point, after all.

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.

Do you care to throw your opinion of why Jeph Loeb agrees with me?

You'll excuse me if I don't tally all the times you are wrong about something. Exhausting and thorough thing.

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.

So, you get Batman more than one of the most celebrated and popular writers of the series?
I thought you actually liked The Long Halloween. Maybe you consider it part of the ELSEWORLDS.

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.

Look at Nolan's interpretaton: He doesn't have side-kicks, he thinks he doesn't need and he thinks he can't have the luxury of friends.
Obviously, Nolan's Batman is personally wrong, but I say that, if he were to have allies, these should better be extensively trained and not minors.

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?

Hahahaha, funny, he already did all those things before having a side-kick, where does he find the time for anything else?

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.

Disbelief should always be there at a healty level, t: and I think yours is broken.

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

And we all have been told that Todd wasn't ready.
Part of Batman's training is "staying put" when he commands so, and he has been disobeyed more than once.

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

What?? I've been saying this since the beginning.
Maybe it's the reading problem again. Go see an oculist.

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.

See... here is the thing:
"He trusts them implicitly" ... character inconsistency.
"trains them so well" ... not suspendend, but BROKEN disbelief.

What's your point? That's not Batman forbidding Tim to be Robin, Melkay, or not letting him fight crime.

Which is incoherent in itself because (I really have to spell everything for ya, don't I?) letting him be Robin is risking his life. At least in a semi-plausible setting that doesn't consider us all idiotic readers with broken disbelief-meters.

Tim Drake's Robin having his own title is proof of his immense popularity...not proof of a lack of it.

I agree, he has enough popularity... enough to take protagonism away from the Bat.
And, as Alan Moore said, the audiences are not artists.

But if you want to validate popularity (which is the same as populism) then we should stop this argument, because the pollsters have spoken.

Good night, my friend. Say hello to Saint and Sushi.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

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?

And you call me an idiot?

met⋅a⋅phor

[met-uh-fawr, -fer] –noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1). 2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Origin:
1525–35; < L metaphora < Gk metaphorá a transfer, akin to metaphérein to transfer. See meta-, -phore

The point I am trying to make is that Robin is Batman's Apprentice. That's the relationship there. Master and Apprentice. It's a concept that is not commonly used or understood in 2008, but that's what it's about. Master and Apprentice.

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.

Okay, let me use another metaphor. One that is so obvious that your dimness cannot possibly miss it.

Knights had squires.

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.

Have you ever noticed how, in the movies, and in the comics, and so on, Batman's ability to meet a threat is determined by what the story requires of him? If the story needs Joker to get the best of him, Joker gets the best of him. If the story requires Batman to break a roomful of goons and throw Eric Roberts off a fire escape all without breaking a sweat, it happens. Guess what? It's called fiction, genius. If a writer decides it's going to happen, it happens. A good writer makes it happen without you stopping to question it.

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.

I don't deny that the original reason for introducing Robin was exactly that. But 68 years later, there's still a Robin. It's not really about making it relatable to a younger audience anymore. Robin's a part of the mythos. People grew up with him. They expect him to exist in some form or another. I don't think I'm being taken for an idiot just because Robin shows up. It depends how he's used. Robin doesn't have to be cheesy and he doesn't have to be insulting to the audience. Just because he sometimes is handled that way, doesn't mean that's the gold standard, or the highest that a writer can aspire to.

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.

That's fine, but who are you to say what Batman's psychological construction is? What gives you a higher authority over me? Batman's psychological construction varies from writer to writer. Some people are fairly certain he's insane. I'm fairly certain he's not. But it's all in the writer's hands. There is NO definitive psychological construction of this character. He's been handled many ways over many years, some of these versions better than others. I happen to like Nolan's version better than Tim Burton's. I happen to like Denny O'Neil's version better than anything done in the 50's. But what I like or doesn't like doesn't invalidate any of them, and it doesn't invalidate somebody else's taste.

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.

It's not contradictory at all. Do you know why? Let me lay it out for you. Batman is a fictional character. He changes depending on who writes him. He has been many different types of man over the years. Batman has existed for almost 70 years, he's had an apprentice named Robin for the VAST majority of that time - there have been three boys to be called Robin, Frank Miller also wrote one with a girl; also there was Spoiler, who was Robin a minute.

Do you get what I'm saying? You can argue that it's contradictory to Batman's nature but it's not, because the history of the character suggests that it's in Batman's nature to have an apprentice named Robin. If you think it ISN'T in his nature, then you're living in a pretend world where almost 70 years of Batman stories simply do not exist.

And you're the guy who called me delusional. You want to discuss amazing? THAT is amazing.

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)?

He might. Or he might understand that if anybody had tried to protect him when he was a kid, he would not have stood for it. He might know himself well enough to know that trying some bullcrap like that with Dick Grayson would not work at all. Under any circumstances.

You're making wild assumptions here, taking for granted too many things that just don't fit.

No, I'm not drawing assumptions at all. I'm drawing my arguments from 70 years of comic book history. You're the one who thinks that it's not in Batman's nature to have an apprentice named Robin. Go down to the comic shop and your head might explode.

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.

Yep. IT'S HELPING HIMSELF. You got it exactly right. I can see I'm making progress. NOW. Since we know that he identifies with Dick, thinks of Dick as being, well, young Bruce all over again... might not Batman believe that what's good for Bruce is good for Dick?

I understand the obvious fallacy in that line of thinking. I'm not saying that Batman is right to think this way. But I'm saying that it's not hard to imagine that he would.

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.

You don't think it did? You haven't read many comics, have you?

1. Bruce was 25 (or 29 in Nolan's version) and completely responsible for his own acts.

That's true. But I already said that I don't really think Nolan will do a Robin story, nor do I really need to see one. I'm here trying to educate on the CONCEPT of Robin, not argue as to why Nolan should or should not use him in his films.

2. Bruce was more than prepared for the job, something Dick could not ever accomplish on his own.

Exactly: on his own. That's why Dick would need Bruce's tutelage.

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.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Are you suggesting that Bruce's relationship to Dick would not be the same as Alfred's is to Bruce? If so I agree. Alfred is still alive, so Alfred can be the enabler to Dick, just as he was for Bruce. I'm not suggesting that Bruce is an enabler. I'm suggesting that Bruce does not necessarily differentiate between himself and Dick. He assumes that Dick is exactly like him. And to a point he's right, but as Dick grows up he makes his own choices and does not necessarily agree with Bruce all the time, and you know how their relationship evolved over the years.

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

Again, have you READ any comics? Bruce may have recruited Jason, and likely it was out of a desire try to get right what he thought he'd gotten wrong with Dick; but then Jason got killed and Batman actually slipped into a total funk, getting beat up worse than usual, giving very little regard to his own physical well-being, almost punishing himself for what had happened to Jason.

Bruce did NOT recruit Tim Drake. If you've read "A Lonely Place of Dying" then you know that Tim recruited himself. He basically showed up and pushed himself on Batman. He showed that he was one hell of a great detective that he figured out who Batman really is. He wanted to help him, he made his case that Batman NEEDS him. Batman disagreed. Batman didn't want Tim around for exactly the reasons you've laid out: He didn't want Tim getting killed the way that Jason did. So he pushed him away, but Dick and Alfred actually worked on him until he reluctantly agreed to let Tim stay with him. It was quite a while before he really let Tim help him - Tim actually saved him from Scarecrow - and when he finally gave Tim the new Robin suit, the first thing he did was send Tim out to travel the world and study with all these great teachers, just as Bruce himself did.

So you see, Bruce DID learn from his mistakes. But with Dick, it wasn't like that. Bruce taught Dick himself. And Dick soaked it up because it was what he wanted 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.

OH MY GOD, A FICTIONAL CHILD IS AT RISK!!!! OH NOES!!!

Let me make myself PERFECTLY clear here: I get the point you're making. I understand that it's a wrong choice, morally, to train Dick to fight crime and to put him in a position where he's fighting bad guys. But it doesn't change the fact that this is what Batman did. It also doesn't change the fact that it's sort of fascinating to have a hero who doesn't always do the exact right thing. Or who doesn't do the safest possible thing. Superman would never take an apprentice like that because you can't learn to fly or burn a hole in a car with your eyes. Superman would never endanger a human life. Hell, that's why Superman doesn't like Batman doing what he does. Superman thinks that he, Superman, is reason enough for Batman to go home, have a beer, and watch some football.

Batman disagrees. Batman chooses to endanger his own life because it's for the betterment of society at large. Batman also apparently feels that it's important to train up somebody to take his place when he's gone.

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.

I'm the one with the limited intellect? I'm not the one ignoring 70 years of Batman stories, MENSA.

Astronauts Keyser-boy... Astronauts .

Knights, Melkay... Knights.

[CONTINUED...]

 

[Keyser Sushi]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Oh God.... now Batman's like a part-time plumber, part-time electrician.

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

met&#8901;a&#8901;phor

[met-uh-fawr, -fer] &#8211;noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in &#8220;A mighty fortress is our God.&#8221; Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1). 2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Origin:
1525&#8211;35; < L metaphora < Gk metaphorá a transfer, akin to metaphérein to transfer. See meta-, -phore

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

You know who you remind me of? I knew this girl back in school. She was a preacher's daughter. She thought our science teacher was an idiot when he started talking about atoms and molecules. The table couldn't POSSIBLY be made out of atoms, she said, or her hand would go through it.

That's you, Melkay. Way to go.

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.

You're the same guy who said he felt insulted by Robin because he was originally created as a way to amuse younger readers, right? Are you aware that Batman used to kill people in the early days of the comic? He was a flat-out murderer. So by your reckoning, shouldn't the "no-kill" rule contradict who Batman is?

Oh yeah, he used to use guns, too. Is that contradiction because his parents were killed by a man with a gun? Or do people often become the thing they hate? Is Michael Corleone a contradiction in "The Godfather" for turning into his dad?

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?

I never said if Tim Drake did or didn't. As for Dick Grayson, that happened as Dick got older. Young Dick Grayson was a very well-behaved boy, all-in-all.

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?

Can we do that again in English?

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

If that's what you think you're doing, that's precious.

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

Yeah, and I'd hope that after this you never use a computer again, but hope in one hand and crap in the other, Melkay, and see which one fills up.

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

You know, you're using a lot of personal attacks here. A fella could report you if he had a mind. But I'm not that kind of guy. I like to fight my own battles. Sadly, you're not much of an opponent.

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

Yeah, well. I was making an example about how it could work if you're so hell-bent on REALISM, which you seem to be where Robin is concerned (yet it doesn't bother you as concerns any other character, I'm sure).

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

Oh yes. DAMN THOSE SILLY WRITERS FOR WRITING! SCREW THEM FOR MAKING FICTIONAL CHARACTERS BEHAVE IN A MANNER OF THEIR CHOOSING!

I'm going to take a guess and say that you think puppets get up and dance at night when people aren't using them. You do realize that a fictional character is a puppet of a writer, right? They do whatever the writer says. The FEEL whatever the writer says. They THINK whatever the writer says. So the only measure of consistency or inconsistency is what the writers determine to be consistent or inconsistent. I mean hell, there's a comic book about a dude from another planet who can fly when he's on our planet. Logically that doesn't make a load of sense, but guess what? IT'S FICTION! Amazing! Incredible! I wonder how that works?

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

I didn't fail to read what you said; what you said just failed to get your point across I'm afraid. Also, "idiotness" is not a word. The word you're looking for is "idiocy."

"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?

Because the criminals are bad people and he locks them up. Dick Grayson does not deserve to be locked up. Or do you think he should be put in jail? That's the problem with your logic.

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?

Because he'd have to LOCK THE KID IN PRISON, and he doesn't deserve that!

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

Safer than if the kid tried to go stop bad guys alone, now isn't it?

Seriously, get a doctor. Critical mass.

Ya think? You're the one who advocates locking kids in prison when they don't do as they're told.

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

It says a lot about you that you have to insult me to get your point across.

Especially when you still fail to make a coherent argument.

(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* )

You want to talk about man-child now? Guess what, Dr. Hawking? We're both posting on an internet message board. I doubt very sincerely that you're more mature than I am. Especially when you're the one lobbing personal insults like hand grenades.

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

Only that you actually said it.

met&#8901;a&#8901;phor

[met-uh-fawr, -fer] &#8211;noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in &#8220;A mighty fortress is our God.&#8221; Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1). 2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Origin:
1525&#8211;35; < L metaphora < Gk metaphorá a transfer, akin to metaphérein to transfer. See meta-, -phore

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?

Can you separate the movies from the comics, or is that too much to ask?

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?

No... but if the father was already a drug-addict, he just might allow and enable it anyway.

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?

Outside of All-Stars, Batman has never FORCED anybody to become Robin.

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?

When was the last time Batman BROKE ROBIN'S LEGS?!?! WTF are you even talking about?

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....

Did you ever go on a camping trip as a child? In the woods? Where there are bears and stuff? Because I did. I was a boy scout. I learned survival skills and how to take care of myself. Would you ever let your kid go on a camping trip in the woods? Or would the fact that they might get hurt or lost make your crap your pants?

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.

I know what hyperbole is. How can you lecture me on hyperbole when I had to define METAPHOR for you not once, not twice, but THREE GODDAMNED TIMES in this single post?

 

[Crook]

When was the last time Batman BROKE ROBIN'S LEGS?!?! WTF are you even talking about?

I believe the metaphor definition is applicable here.

 

[Melkay]

I resent that. I absolutely love Robin as a character, I have no problem at all with how he fits into the mythos....but the age he starts off as a costumed vigilante will always be a problem for me.

It is quite possibly the most absurd thing I can think of from the Batman world. Yes, more bizarre than a man falling in bleached chemicals, a guy that transforms from clay, an immortal megalomaniac...all of it. From what I've gathered, it is still canon that Robin starts off at around 12-13, yes?

*I* have a 12 year-old sister, and I've met all her friends, boys and girls alike. No training in the world would make me believe they could hold their own against several grown adults with weapons. Especially day in and day out. Before you bring it up, yes, I have met some talented youngsters around that age who are very proficient in martial arts. Regardless of skill, their stature and strength at that age, I feel, aren't up to par for the vigilante life.

I've got no issue with Dick being an orphan, taken up by Bruce, and start training at that age. But, the moment he puts on a costume and starts fighting alongside Bats, Dick should at least be 16-17. At least.

See?! This is something I can live with. 4, maybe 5 years of training before him going into missions, and Batman doesn't have to be his only teacher. That's something I can see in a Nolan's movie.

"Bale's Batman commiserates a boy he watched him face a tragedy similar to his, and eventually adopts the kid. The kid finds out about Batman's identity and demands to help him on his missions. Bale's Batman strongly refuses and, , along with friend and therapist Leslie Tompkins, he does all kinds of things to discourage the kid from becoming a vigilante, without success. At some point this kid (name Dick, age 13), doning a home-made costume, follows Bruce and saves his life at a critical point, but gets hurt or ruins anothr part of the mission. Bale locks him up in his room for some time, and then finally walks in, a looks severely at the boy...

BALE'S BRUCE: You say you want to do what I do, and help me, but you're not ready, and all you're going to accomplish is get yourself killed. You can do things, and you think you're ready, but you're not. This is not easy. You can't do this... not right now. That's why I'm going to train you. Train you without stopping, maybe even away from here. You need to learn discipline, you need to get stronger... and only then I'll let you work with me, after you turn eighteen.

Because you're going to find that the training it's important. That the will is not everything.

(Dick looks at him)

BRUCE: Understood?

DICK: Yes.

(Bruce walks away to the door.)

DICK: Thank you.

BRUCE: Don't. Maybe one day, I will be thanking you."

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I believe the metaphor definition is applicable here.

No dude, it's not.

The first one, the one about the drugs and the father, that one, I can see how it applies. After that his metaphors start falling apart. Batman never forced any of those boys to become Robin, and he never directly caused any physical harm to any of them.

So the metaphor is broken. Period.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

See?! This is something I can live with. 4, maybe 5 years of training before him going into missions, and Batman doesn't have to be his only teacher. That's something I can see in a Nolan's movie.

"Bale's Batman commiserates a boy he watched him face a tragedy similar to his, and eventually adopts the kid. The kid finds out about Batman's identity and demands to help him on his missions. Bale's Batman strongly refuses and, , along with friend and therapist Leslie Tompkins, he does all kinds of things to discourage the kid from becoming a vigilante, without success. At some point this kid (name Dick, age 13), doning a home-made costume, follows Bruce and saves his life at a critical point, but gets hurt or ruins anothr part of the mission. Bale locks him up in his room for some time, and then finally walks in, a looks severely at the boy...

BALE'S BRUCE: You say you want to do what I do, and help me, but you're not ready, and all you're going to accomplish is get yourself killed. You can do things, and you think you're ready, but you're not. This is not easy. You can't do this... not right now. That's why I'm going to train you. Train you without stopping, maybe even away from here. You need to learn discipline, you need to get stronger... and only then I'll let you work with me, after you turn eighteen.

Because you're going to find that the training it's important. That the will is not everything.

(Dick looks at him)

BRUCE: Understood?

DICK: Yes.

(Bruce walks away to the door.)

DICK: Thank you.

BRUCE: Don't. Maybe one day, I will be thanking you."

So, suddenly you're okay with Robin?

 

[Crook]

The first one, the one about the drugs and the father, that one, I can see how it applies. After that his metaphors start falling apart. Batman never forced any of those boys to become Robin,

The metaphor begins when the boy is already on the football team being coached. Not before or how he got onto the team.

and he never directly caused any physical harm to any of them.

Depends on what your definition of that is. If you train/work out right, you should feel pain. That's the only way you know that your body is stressing past it's current state, and thus improving.

I know Bruce pushed his body to it's peak, and I can only assume "proper" training of his apprentice would serve along the same methods. Would that not account for "tough training" equating to a coach, perhaps unintentionally, pushing his boy's limits that leads to bodily harm?

 

[Melkay]

And you call me an idiot?

Positive. You can't even select a good metaphor without me correcting you. How hard can that be?

Knights had squires.

Squires were serfs and, as such, medieval knights usually didn't care much for their squires' lives, which is a fundamentally important element here.

Two opportunities, two bad metaphors.

What's so wrong with astronauts?

A good writer makes it happen without you stopping to question it.

A good and credible writer also makes lots of moments where Batman is physically surpassed by some circumstances. (raging dogs; being thrown from a van; being thrown from the batpod at a bad turn; being beaten with a metal tube until your helmet techonology is malfunctioning; being shot by guy that holds a kid as hostage, etc.)
Where were you going to introduce Robin again?

I don't deny that the original reason for introducing Robin was exactly that. But 68 years later, there's still a Robin. It's not really about making it relatable to a younger audience anymore. Robin's a part of the mythos. People grew up with him. They expect him to exist in some form or another. I don't think I'm being taken for an idiot just because Robin shows up. It depends how he's used. Robin doesn't have to be cheesy and he doesn't have to be insulting to the audience. Just because he sometimes is handled that way, doesn't mean that's the gold standard, or the highest that a writer can aspire to.

Of course he's not. If you actually took the time to read what I've been saying, youll see that I advocate for the necessary changes to be made to the character, or not having him. Simple as that. As you can see, I liked Crook's adaptation idea.

That's fine, but who are you to say what Batman's psychological construction is? What gives you a higher authority over me?

No one, it seems, since StormingNorman has more authority than Miller and Guard thinks Loeb doesn't know what he's talking about.
What I actually want is make a reasonable debate that leads to a common ground (or an explained distinction) of how each one of us perceive Batman's psychology.
For me, they guy is so adamant about protecting human life (as evidenced by the Joker's death dilemma) that he wouldn't risk an unprepared, underage kid's life.
Is that that the same for you? If not, I'm all ears.

And... if we remember the title of the thread, we should always mentiont how we perceive Nolan's Batman too.

It's not contradictory at all. Do you know why? Let me lay it out for you. Batman is a fictional character. He changes depending on who writes him.

So, if in the next movie Bale drops his current suit and he gets the Adam West suit (the exact Adam West suit), it wouldn't be a contradiction because it stems from a then-popular Batman mythology that was present over many years?
It all comes down again about what interpretations we think are more defining and appropriate. Read the previous quote and let's get down to business.

He might. Or he might understand that if anybody had tried to protect him when he was a kid, he would not have stood for it. He might know himself well enough to know that trying some bullcrap like that with Dick Grayson would not work at all. Under any circumstances.

We've seen Batman thinks too much of his capabilities, "I don't need any help!", "I can take it" and all that crap. We've seen him be overly confident of what he can achieve. Why should this time be any different?

No, I'm not drawing assumptions at all. I'm drawing my arguments from 70 years of comic book history. You're the one who thinks that it's not in Batman's nature to have an apprentice named Robin. Go down to the comic shop and your head might explode.

My head sometimes feels like that when I see what's going on in the monthlies.
But for argument's sake, in more than 60 years, passing from one author to another) there must be some contradictions. If not this, there must be some. Are you denying the existence of any contradiction whatsoever?
Let's limit ourselves to modern mythology... is still free of contradictions?

Yep. IT'S HELPING HIMSELF. You got it exactly right. I can see I'm making progress. NOW. Since we know that he identifies with Dick, thinks of Dick as being, well, young Bruce all over again... might not Batman believe that what's good for Bruce is good for Dick?
I understand the obvious fallacy in that line of thinking. I'm not saying that Batman is right to think this way. But I'm saying that it's not hard to imagine that he would.

It's not only a fallacy, but also a contradiction. What's Bruce thinks is good for himself is: having a normal life, leaving the mantle to a Gotham hero without a mask, marrying Rachel, or Selina, being more like his father, a philantrope, etc., etc., etc.
And?

"What's good for Bruce...", it seems I'm not making any progress with you. Poor thing

You don't think it did? You haven't read many comics, have you?

I have. But apparently, after all he said, it wasn't strong enough to forbid the kid from doing exactly that. And we all know how stubborn can Bruce be.... or don't we? Maybe we didn't know Bruce as good as we thought. Maybe the guy is... an enigma ...
... or just poorly written in that moment.

That's true. But I already said that I don't really think Nolan will do a Robin story, nor do I really need to see one. I'm here trying to educate on the CONCEPT of Robin, not argue as to why Nolan should or should not use him in his films.

So you're wasting both of our times, since I'm arguing about the inclusion or not of Robin in the story, and how what consitutes a minor flaw in the diverse and lengthy comic history can become EVIDENT and UNFITTING for this current franchise.
You're arguing for argument's sake, wasting both of our times. Shame on you. Grow up.

Exactly: on his own. That's why Dick would need Bruce's tutelage.

This is circular for two reasons: one: if Bruce's doesn't train the boy, he cannot become a vigilante. and two: Bruce is not in a position to train a teenager side-kick, not alone and in such short time.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Are you suggesting that Bruce's relationship to Dick would not be the same as Alfred's is to Bruce?

Yes.

If so I agree. Alfred is still alive, so Alfred can be the enabler to Dick, just as he was for Bruce.

All Alfred can do is give Dick access to the Batcave or the keys of the Batmobile. He can't train Dick and Dick can't become Robin without training. Circular.

I'm not suggesting that Bruce is an enabler. I'm suggesting that Bruce does not necessarily differentiate between himself and Dick. He assumes that Dick is exactly like him.

And I get the projection, but I fail to see why Bruce would set the boy in his same path, if that's not what he wants for himself. Wouldn't he try to give the kid the life he could not have?

Again, have you READ any comics? Bruce may have recruited Jason, and likely it was out of a desire try to get right what he thought he'd gotten wrong with Dick; but then Jason got killed and Batman actually slipped into a total funk, getting beat up worse than usual, giving very little regard to his own physical well-being, almost punishing himself for what had happened to Jason.

You're not telling me anything new. Where did I went wrong there?

Bruce did NOT recruit Tim Drake. If you've read "A Lonely Place of Dying" then you know that Tim recruited himself. He basically showed up and pushed himself on Batman. He showed that he was one hell of a great detective that he figured out who Batman really is.

I've acknowledged that fact many times before... and that's semantic, at best. Recruitment means he eventually allowed him to be Robin and work with him. Recruitment means he still let him take the job, isn't it? Or do you prefer "hired"?

and when he finally gave Tim the new Robin suit, the first thing he did was send Tim out to travel the world and study with all these great teachers, just as Bruce himself did.

I even quoted an Alfed enabling-Bruce forbidding scene. And I've said before that Tim is my favorite Robin, so I took the part of the extensive foreign training in my reply to Crook's idea, I even said that Bruce shouldn't be Robin's only teacher. Dick should be exactly like Tim, except with his own tragic background.

But with Dick, it wasn't like that. Bruce taught Dick himself. And Dick soaked it up because it was what he wanted to do.

Which I find umbelievable, but that's why I like so much Crook's adaptation.

I get the point you're making. I understand that it's a wrong choice, morally, to train Dick to fight crime and to put him in a position where he's fighting bad guys. But it doesn't change the fact that this is what Batman did.

.... in comics, but not in the film franchise yet. What has been done in comics cannot be fixed, and subsequent authors have had to carry that burden. But film is a virgin territory right now, and this thread is about asking: "should Batman do the same he did in comics?"
I don't think so, hence the change of origin story. Now I'm asking you, waht do you think?

Batman chooses to endanger his own life because it's for the betterment of society at large. Batman also apparently feels that it's important to train up somebody to take his place when he's gone.

And endangenring that person's life? (and that somebody happens to be a minor).

There's when we should argue about how we each see Batman, like I said at the beginning.

I'm the one with the limited intellect? I'm not the one ignoring 70 years of Batman stories, MENSA.

No, you're just accepting it without questioning. Zealots and purists tend to do that. I just hope you're not one of them.

Knights, Melkay... Knights.

Serfs, Sushi... dead serfs.

 

[Melkay]

So, suddenly you're okay with Robin?

Yes. Emphatically yes. I've said before that I like the character individually. I even liked Jason Todd, even regretted his death, and still do. I only wanted a proper adaptation of the origin story. Failing to get that, I wouldn't want Robin in film.

You understood that right now, didn't you?

 

[Melkay]

You know who you remind me of? I knew this girl back in school. She was a preacher's daughter. She thought our science teacher was an idiot when he started talking about atoms and molecules. The table couldn't POSSIBLY be made out of atoms, she said, or her hand would go through it.

Don't tell me that, tell that to Guard and StormingNorman disbelief of Loeb and Miller.

Or to yourself...sometimes you seem like a little boy in science class, compeltely believing in what his Physics teacher tells him when he says that the Huygens/Einstein particles paradox is bullcrap and Huygens was the only one right there.

You can't become a purist just for the sake of it, and art is not science. I'm not denying what has happened at 70 years of comics, but I am pointing out at the contradictions. And if there are contradictions in science (ask Huygens and Einstein) then there certainly are contradictions in art.

By the way, Einsteing was one of the guys who didn't believe what quantum theorists said.... and he was wrong.

That was some major schooling for you...... I'm so proud of myself right now t:.

You're the same guy who said he felt insulted by Robin because he was originally created as a way to amuse younger readers, right? Are you aware that Batman used to kill people in the early days of the comic? He was a flat-out murderer. So by your reckoning, shouldn't the "no-kill" rule contradict who Batman is?

Oh yeah, he used to use guns, too.

I knew that. The late forties and fifties fixed that for good. The key difference is that Batman was improved, while Dick Grayson's origin story has remained relatively unaltered over the years.

Is Michael Corleone a contradiction in "The Godfather" for turning into his dad?

No, but once the character is established, I an buy that. I also buy James for becoming the original Sawyer. But once they tell me that Batman prices human life so much he doesn't have guns and keeps saving the life of his enemies, then I can't buy what he does with Dick.

As for Dick Grayson, that happened as Dick got older. Young Dick Grayson was a very well-behaved boy, all-in-all.

Silver Age does that to people. They eventually fixed it.

Can we do that again in English?

TRANSLATON: I never said it was the general rule... and what general means anyway? How do you measure that up?

If that's what you think you're doing, that's precious.

I guessed you could use the humor, you've been repeating me the concept of metaphor (a concept you had to look up in the dictionary) only to keep inventing incorrect metaphors (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, knights) over and over again.
And yes, you're been *****slapped and you don't even notice. So hug your inner child and tell him it's going to be alright.

Yeah, and I'd hope that after this you never use a computer again, but hope in one hand and crap in the other, Melkay, and see which one fills up.

You know, you're using a lot of personal attacks here. A fella could report you if he had a mind. But I'm not that kind of guy. I like to fight my own battles. Sadly, you're not much of an opponent.

Good god, you actually performed that experiment, didn't you?

Yeah, well. I was making an example about how it could work if you're so hell-bent on REALISM, which you seem to be where Robin is concerned (yet it doesn't bother you as concerns any other character, I'm sure).

If you're going to be a purist, please, be a purist, don't be arguing for argument's sake. If you want things to be like in the comics, then act like so... I'm trying to find the less changing adaptation of all, merging elements from Dick's story to Tim's training and his discovery of Batman's identity. You want to push that even further.

Oh yes. DAMN THOSE SILLY WRITERS FOR WRITING! SCREW THEM FOR MAKING FICTIONAL CHARACTERS BEHAVE IN A MANNER OF THEIR CHOOSING!

Yeah, they can't even get up their **** straight. I'm sure arguing with me gets the worst out of you, so let it all out.

You do realize that a fictional character is a puppet of a writer, right? They do whatever the writer says. The FEEL whatever the writer says. They THINK whatever the writer says.

And I am the puppet master's critic, while you seem to think everything he does he set in stone.
Character's are puppets to writers, but audiences are not and they don't always buy what the writers create. That's why writers keep being responsible about what they do.

So the only measure of consistency or inconsistency is what the writers determine to be consistent or inconsistent.

Oh no, they don't! And I expect more from you than a brainless brownnoser. Don't be an uncritical asinine. Be better than that.

I mean hell, there's a comic book about a dude from another planet who can fly when he's on our planet. Logically that doesn't make a load of sense, but guess what? IT'S FICTION! Amazing! Incredible! I wonder how that works?

Poor thing.
Sets of rules. A world's sets of rules... Batman is adamant about protecting human life AT ALL COSTS... and still allows a kid to risk his life by working with him... that's a contradiction of an established rule.
And I didn't even need the dictionary to give you that lesson.

I didn't fail to read what you said; what you said just failed to get your point across I'm afraid. Also, "idiotness" is not a word. The word you're looking for is "idiocy."

Haha, you made a whle quote of that... I s'ck at english, so it shouldn't surprise you. But I can you're getting desperate, holding to everything you can. "Much restlessness I sense in you."

Because the criminals are bad people and he locks them up. Dick Grayson does not deserve to be locked up. Or do you think he should be put in jail? That's the problem with your logic.

Because he'd have to LOCK THE KID IN PRISON, and he doesn't deserve that!

If a kid steals a car and crashes into a store by accident, should be sent to jail?
If by accident a kid makes a crime, should he go unpunished?

What if it was deliberate? What if that kid tried to get revenge at his parents murdere? Wouldn't that be an assasination attempt? What if he 'breaks and enter' at a strange house, or 'steals money from someone' as means to getting that revenge?

Most juvenile delinquents have troubled backgrounds... should Batman spare them all and train the most agile ones to be his side-kicks?

If I have a problem with my logic it's because I still have a logic, which is the key difference here with your attempts at counter-arguing.

Safer than if the kid tried to go stop bad guys alone, now isn't it?

Fortunately, with Bruce Wayne resourceful intervention, that wouldn't have to be the case.

Ya think? You're the one who advocates locking kids in prison when they don't do as they're told.

If what you're telling them is not break the Law, more than once, then, unfortunately, yes, that's what I'm telling.
Life sucks, but you can't risk innocent people's lives because you can't put a kid in control, no matter how many reasons he'd have to break the law. Batman's reasons are not personal... he's trying to be good inffluence for the city. That's not the case with Dick.

It says a lot about you that you have to insult me to get your point across. Especially when you still fail to make a coherent argument.

It only says I want to keep at your level. Sometimes insults get the message across. Since you haven't seen the arguments, maybe I should insult you even more. Or dial it down. Do you want me to treat you nicer, dear?

You want to talk about man-child now? Guess what, Dr. Hawking? We're both posting on an internet message board. I doubt very sincerely that you're more mature than I am. Especially when you're the one lobbing personal insults like hand grenades.

Since I don't care about insults and you get all worked up, I would say the answer is obvious.
This is still a hobby, pal. Keep it cool.

Can you separate the movies from the comics, or is that too much to ask?

I can, but I can't separate the movies from the discussion. See, the thread has a title, and sometimes it's good reading it.

No... but if the father was already a drug-addict, he just might allow and enable it anyway.

???????????????????
I am so going to ignore that point, for your sake.

If you want I admit defeat here. But I DON'T want to go that road.
If nothing, read my point about what Bruce would want for himself.

Outside of All-Stars, Batman has never FORCED anybody to become Robin.
When was the last time Batman BROKE ROBIN'S LEGS?!?! WTF are you even talking about?

What if they jewish wants to do it? Or what if the jewish boy wants to join the resistance, instead of taking care of his sick mother while his father fights away?

Did you ever go on a camping trip as a child? In the woods? Where there are bears and stuff? Because I did. I was a boy scout. I learned survival skills and how to take care of myself. Would you ever let your kid go on a camping trip in the woods? Or would the fact that they might get hurt or lost make your crap your pants?

Back in Cuba, my father had to let me go into military service, and I watched many horrible things there, like a boy get shot deliberately by another in front of me. Seven bullets, only two stayed in, the other five went right through his body, and only because of a childish quarrel. Other two kids were blown up by an unsupervised bad handling of tank ammunition. These are real stories.
I don't have a problem with letting my son become a boy scout, because they have security measures there. But I would do everything in my power to prevent my son of going into obligatory military service... because, though many people say it's good at forming character, it is also usually a deformer of character.

It wasn't my father's fault either. He (and I) did everything he could to shorten my stay there.

That's why you need to see Grey's Anatomy as soon as you can. I'm sure this is an exaggeration of yours but, just in case, you may need to grow a heart.

I know what hyperbole is. How can you lecture me on hyperbole when I had to define METAPHOR for you not once, not twice, but THREE GODDAMNED TIMES in this single post?

You made up a completely flawed metaphor THREE TIMES. And the fourth time it was semi-flawed.
I gotta keep an eye on you every step of the way or you'll go stray, kid.

 

[El Payaso]

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

That’s nothing to do with integrity but necessity. Many actors have to accept any role when they’re beginning with their career. That’s no secret.

Now if you go by reality, Bale never auditioned for 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.

Yeah, some hits and the oblivion. Any actor would kill for that.

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.

Well, people in charge of great franchises have to rate stories and put things in priority since they won’t have 20 movies to show it all.

So far the best bat-directors have prescinded of Robin.

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.

I tend to laugh too, since I took for granted the irony would be seen.

No, Batman putting in danger an underage is not a “bad idea” it’s straight criminal. That outs it in another level than your list.

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

I think Bruce would be more interested in becoming her husband or boyfriend than this “adopting fever” that he should have because the comics say so.

But yes, Catwoman helping him, always with a foot in the “wrong” side, is a far better idea than Robin. You see, it is not hard to find better ideas than Robin.

(Blinks)

Whaaaaaaaat?

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

I said “necessarily.” Please read properly.

So, no. Not all of the themes shown in the comics are key. Batman relationship with Superman, Superman relationship with Mr. Mxyzptlk, Spiderman and madame Webb. None of those are key for the characters’ mythology.

No, but WayneTech has been.

So, another character is being modified so the story is more believable.

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

You can see for yourself that Nolan has done little to nothing about detract from what the mythos has in it. So far he’s going from good to perfection.

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

Fights and action sequences are a must for a bat-franchise. The bat-suit is also a must. They’re not “almost nothing” actually.

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.

What’s fantastic is that a person like Batman would suddenly think that fatherhood, with all the responsibility it carries, can have a place in his life and mission. Putting your son in danger doesn’t make you “not the best parent in the world” but simply one that should be in jail.

And just the notion of fatherhood in Batman’s life is absurd. He knows he can’t have those things. Like he knew he couldn’t be with Rachel unless he quit being Batman.

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

Goes where? No 12 year old kid could face dangers not even a more adult and far more trained Batman can handle. There goes your argument.

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.

But so far, he has been able to work perfectly without a 12 years old boy at his side.

Robin saves people’s lives in comics, where you don’t have to justify things and achieve a difficult level of believability you must reach in movies.

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.

Batman exposes an underage’s life to danger and the Police Dept doesn’t do a thing about it. Superman puts some glasses on and nobody can tell he has the same face. They just let those things be.

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?

Excuse me, Is Pitt a single man that goes out every night with models he never sees again? And how many houses has he put on fire?

It’s not because Bruce has a reputation to keep, it’s because Bruce’s reputation making him rejectable at the moment of adopting.

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.

But there’s an amount of years and training you need as a base.

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

So he won’t get himself killed? How silly consideration of mine.

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...

Not 4 or 5 times.

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?

He might be, but he didn’t do it the right way because of some otehr considerations (Rachel dying). So he doesn’t need someone else to look bad.

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

You should address the point but oh well...

Yes, again: Batman’s inspiration for him is to set an example and make people brave and doing the right thing like Harvey Dent. He wouldn’t adopt Harvey and put him a mask as an example of inspiration.

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?

Some basic morals. That’s why Batman doesn’t kill the enemy. That’s why it’s not his ideal to have an underage in a mask exposing his life as he does.

 

[The Sage]

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

As what? I said all relationships have friction, including parental. How does this differ from the view that Batman's relationship with Robin is that of a parental figure?

 

[protoctista]

I started to read this drawn out argument and then choked on the torrent of merde...

This made me guffaw though, so I thank Keyser Sushi for a hearty flush of endorphines at his expense....

Did you ever go on a camping trip as a child? In the woods? Where there are bears and stuff? Because I did. I was a boy scout. I learned survival skills and how to take care of myself. Would you ever let your kid go on a camping trip in the woods? Or would the fact that they might get hurt or lost make your crap your pants?

Yeah, because crime fighting is just like putting up a tent...





I'd accept Robin if he was 20 years old. But he isn't. He's 12.

Being blunt...
12 year olds are just about getting pubes.

 

[namtaB]

There's no doubt Robin can work with a darker interpretation. But I want Batman to be the loner. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Bubastis]

While I do think the thread is pointless because Nolan has already agreed not to put Robin in, I think Christopher Nolan is the only filmmaker who can and should do a story with Robin in it. Every other story is either unrealistic, not dark enough, pedophilic, or by Frank Miller. Nolan would know how to fix all of those problems. And the relationship between Robin and Batman; the concept of a kindred spirit and the idea of hope and family is what Bruce Wayne neds right now as far as batman-continuity goes.

 

[protoctista]

It's not some kind of arcane secret that only the god Nolan knows how to fix:

Make him older.

It's as simple as that.

 

[COMPO]

To be honest I don't get why people think Robin would make Batman any less dark, I'd say it would make him darker, I mean a guy that is so obsessed with his mission taht he'd train a boy of twelve to take over. Also, the fact that he is not afraid to die for the boy is quite dark, it could put Batman in a dark place that he'd not have robin do a mission and put himself in a difficult position were he'd need robin but would only do that to keep him safe.

Also, I doubt Robin would come in straight through the film, id see more of a montage of him coming into being Robin and his training and such. Robin should become Robin at 16.

 

[StorminNorman]

While I do think the thread is pointless because Nolan has already agreed not to put Robin in, I think Christopher Nolan is the only filmmaker who can and should do a story with Robin in it. Every other story is either unrealistic, not dark enough, pedophilic, or by Frank Miller. Nolan would know how to fix all of those problems. And the relationship between Robin and Batman; the concept of a kindred spirit and the idea of hope and family is what Bruce Wayne neds right now as far as batman-continuity goes.

Have you read Dark Victory?

 

[American_Hobo]

I'm fine with Robin, but i think Batman working alone will be better.

 

[The Guard]

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps and dancing around things with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps. I'm not going to play the "Well, that metaphor won't work well, because you didn't directly reference a masked vigilante and his masked accomplice" games.

So we're going to abandon semantic arguments, and we're going to get back to the core issues here, not sheer opinion. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

 

[The Batman]

It's my birthday, and I don't feel like pointing out semantics traps with idiots today. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow. In fact, I am no longer interested in arguing "semantics" with people who simply want to argue, and will resort to any level of strawman argument and semantics traps.

We're going to abandon semantics, and we're going to get back to the core issues. Saint, Keyser, everyone...that ok with you?

I'm pretty sure you and saint have already won the debate, as far as most are concerned