Once again, if English isn't Melkay's first language, he's got a heck of a grasp on it. But he's smart enough to interpret the concepts we're talking about. This isn't a language barrier thing. Arrogance and closemindedness has no language inherent to it.
Quoting the thread title means nothing to me. This thread has gone beyond whether Robin should be in the movie, Melkay, and you know it. You yourself have begun to argue against his relevance in the comics, and used comic book examples to do so.
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.
Well, the idea is that Robin is a young man who grows up, learns from Bruce, and becomes a man. So yes, the writers found a way to do that again.
I fail to see the issue here, in the context of the comics.
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.
He doesn't need to be as protective of Tim Drake.
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.
70 years of history...a few times when Batman asks Robin to hang back.
Hmm...
Batman? Weird? Gray areas?
Whaaaat?
(Falls over laughing)
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.
That's odd. Because it seems to me that none of you statements to me featured "in his early years" as an explanation for why you don't think Robin works.
None of them. You've been very clear that you don't Batman would deal with a young Robin, period.
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.
These are are very usefull things. Not neccessary things.
As an excuse for losing an argument, yes.
Umm, there WAS no argument. I made a statement, and he corrected me, and that was that. There's no won/lost argument there, because I never disputed the first correction. I was incorrect, and he corrected me.
There's generally no need for me to go "I'm wrong", because it's obvious I was mistaken to anyone who read the posts.
Do you want me to point out all the times I've corrected you and you haven't made a public statement about being wrong?
Let's not go there.
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?
Where does anything I say indicate that Bale auditioning for Robin is relevant to whether Robin can work on film?
I made a random statement about Bale because people were bringing Bale up.
Yes, I admit I misspoke (see? class). And none of those honest policemen were Police Commissioners when Batman started out.
See...this is the nonsense I'm not going to put up with anymore.
This "semantic" crap. You misspoke, and you were not clear. Be done with it.
Going onto "None of them were police commissioners" is irrelevant, and not a point I ever brought up.
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.
Now wait a second...
You like the tradition of Gordon...because you've grown attached to him...but those of us who have grown attached to Robin because he's always been the one selected to fill a particular role in the mythos somehow have to have better reasons for an attachment?
Curiously, you seem to be defining characters by their names and not by their roles in the story.
In using English, Melkay, we identify concepts by particular names.
"Catwoman" means "Catwoman", and I associate that name with the ROLE and CHARACTER Catwoman fills in the mythology. This is not a mistake on my part, this is how people think.
When you say "Catwoman", you did not define the specifics of her role at length. In fact, you did not originally define her at all. You specifically used the term "Catwoman".
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.
You are missing the point entirely.
Entirely.
And playing games with semantics, which I will no longer tolerate in this debate.
Originally, I asked you why Catwoman is neccessary, and you said:
Catwoman = Batman's only tangential point with criminals that is not antangonic..
And until I pointed out that you were incorrect about that being the reason she's needed or valuable to the mythos, that is ALL you said.
Now, faced with the fact that this statement was broad and outright wrong, as there are several other villains capable of filling that role, you have begun to try to justify your initial statement by refining it. You have done so several times, and been wrong about her being the only one to fill the role or "place" in the mythos each time.
And yes, I'm playing semantics right back, because I'm tired of you doing so.
Just say you misspoke, as you have done, and admit she's not exactly "needed" for the mythology, and be done with it.
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".
But see, your earlier posts indicated that she was one of the "earliest" to fill this role, and that that was why she was needed.
That was incorrect in itself.
Now, pressed, you talk about longest-running, another revision of your argument, which, curiously, is the same idea many of us have about why Robin is a valid component of the mythos.
I did. I assumed you knew the difference between "need" and "usefulness" in this context.
She is needed because she the narrative is enriched by that role.
The Batman mythos works wonderfully with Catwoman. It works better with Catwoman, in fact. But it does not NEED "Catwoman" to work on its own.
See BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT for proof of this.
That role needs a character to be exploited.
And that character has to be a cat-themed thief? The themes of Catwoman could easily be filled by another archetypal character.
We like Catwoman because we are familiar with her being the one to fill this role.
But she does not "need" to exist.
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.
EXACTLY.
While you have not explained why Catwoman is NEEDED, you have explained why she is a valuable and beloved character to the mythology. And in doing so, you have just proven my point about Robin being a similar type of character.
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).
I don't think so. While Talia and Selina are different characters, with different roles in Batman's story, Talia is very much on a similar level characterwise as Selina, as she also has methods and goals from time to time that are in contrast with Batman's. And Talia has the Ra's Al Ghul/heir angle as well, which Selina doesn't. In addition, Talia Al Ghul shares the "orphan" theme with Bruce, as Selina does.
That's the beauty of the Batman mythology. The characters can be interchanged from story to story without losing the key themes, and that keeps things relatively fresh, and allows new themes and ideas to be explored.
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.
He could be crippled, and if he had an amazing techno-wheelchair, you are correct. He wouldn't NEED his car or his legs. And thus, if that was the case, I would never make such a statement. And I haven't.
Pushing it further, we would realize that he doesn't even need his double-identity to fight crime.
He has never needed his double identity to fight crime. He has wanted it to keep his humanity intact.
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?
If you want to honor the current Batman mythology to a point, in that context, in a context where you wish to honor the mythology, some things are neccessary, because if one wishes to honor the mythology, some things are neccessary to include.
It's like, if you want to hit a homerun in baseball, you have to either hit the ball over the fences or hit it to a point where you can have an inside the park homerun. This must happen in order for you to fulfill your objective.
Needs do exist, in certain contexts.
But you are not speaking in a particular context, though, so that particular need does not exist in the story. In the context of a story about a man in a wheelchair who fights crime for one day, no, there is no inherent "need" for him to survive beyond one day. Had you mentioned that you wanted to honor the existing Batman mythology, then yes, he would need to survive, because the current Batman mythology shows him waging his war on crime for years and years.
The Universe is not needed.
If we step back and look at the Universe in that context, that of it simply doesn't need to "be", then it is not needed. You're starting to catch on. But if we look at the context of "Is the Universe needed for our current existence", then yes, it does become neccessary in a sense.
......... 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.
You need to look at context, not some broad statement about what you value about the mythology, and then call that a "need".
You're trying to tell me Batman needs the Batmobile because it's a useful tool. That's too broad a statement.
Now then...
Would you like to stop arguing with semantics and semantic traps yet?
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.
If you removed that contradictory element, then you wouldn't logically have an accurate portrayal of Batman as he's become over the years. If that's ok with you, fine.
But to decry what's always been there as not lining up with what's always been there...makes no sense.
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.
Wait...
that's what this is about?
You just assume I believe the concept has no flaws?
Good lord, no. Robin is an insanely flawed concept.
It always has been.
Because Batman is an inherently flawed character.
He's a vigilante
He engages in criminal activity
He uses violence and deceit
He turns away from the happier side of life for his obsessive mission
Thank goodness writers picked up on this element more in the 70's and 80's and began to make Robin into so much more than a "sidekick", and brought a more mature approach to the character, and the idea of the concept, warts and all.
The whole point, what makes the concept compelling is that, while it has its upside, like Batman's life and mission, the idea is flawed, but somehow seems to work out for the better in the end on some level. Even the tragedies Batman has suffered with his allies have strengthened him and his family.
I am fully aware that it is a flawed concept. But it meshes perfectly with the flawed character that it enhances.
I don't understand how you can understand that Batman is a flawed character...see how many flawed methods he has, and still go "But...but Robin is one flaw too many", despite the fact that the mythology has never indicated this is remotely the case.
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)
The cave is, in fact, easier to be found, it seems, because it has been located more often than Batman's other bases.
The cave is more useful in certain situations, not all of them.
The cave is more about theme and tradition than anything else.
As THE DARK KNIGHT showed us, it is missed when not portrayed, but it is not needed for Batman to work.
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.
I won't argue that the supervillains enhance the mythology. But your concept of "need" doesn't jive with what the word generally means in the context you've been using it in, that of it being absolutely indispensable. It has more to do with "I like the way this element enhances the Batman mythology, because that's how it's always been".
And if you can argue that for the supervillains, you should be able to accept this as a reason to believe Robin is a valid addition to the mythology. Otherwise you'd be a massive hypocrite.
Before I was joking, but now I've realized you actually define characters by their name, and not the role they occupy.
Oh, and you don't associate the name with a concept? Then what's with your "Catwoman is better at this element than Talia" nonsense?
When I say "create a character like The Joker", I mean "like the Joker". "With similarities".
You've been arguing that "The Joker" is neccessary.
Careful with backing down on that point.
Do you think the mythos "needs" "The Joker", or just the role he fulfills?
Careful, now.
You go all the way back to the beginning of the debate, at least when I came in. It started with StorminNorman.
So...when you paraphrase someone, you just take what they said, and use it without quoting them?
That's not paraphrasing, that's plagerism.
And that's lazy.
Regardless of whether the concept is entirely yours or not, you presented it in the argument. It's fair game.
One would think those people were all prepared and not underage. Batman's a bastard.
They are prepared. The mythos shows us, very clearly, that they have been prepared for the mission.
Oh, and he should train Alfred too...
He did train Alfred.
Read a comic.
No, I'm saying that these story twists shouldn't be completely dependant of fans reactions.
Tell that to DC.
DC making story decisions based on fan input has NOTHING to do with whether Robin is a valid concept or not.
All it does is speak to each Robin's individual popularity as a character.
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.
Melkay, you're sitting here going "But...but Batman is a fictional character...he's never killed off."
Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
I tried to say "I get it, they never kill him, but they've made up for that over the years by making him suffer fates worse than death".
You either understand my point, or you don't.
DC has explored the idea of the kinds of dangers Batman would be subject to, and subjected him to those dangers. But "death" isn't generally an appropriate end to an entire superhero mythology.
And Batman's a popular character, so they haven't killed him off.
Why you even bring that element up is...baffling.
You say that "what works for him doesn't work for any other character".
That's not true, either.
Dick Grayson's never been killed off, to the best of my knowledge, nor has Barbara Gordon, or James Gordon, in the real mythology, though I believe DC originally wanted to kill Dick off during FINAL CRISIS.
Like, case in point: dying.
Oh no, wait... they can't do that with Batman.
Sure they can. They just don't.
Take it up with comic book traditionalists.
You're confusing "they can't do that" with "they don't do that".
t:
