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

[Melkay]

If you don't mind me asking, why is that a contradiction to Batman's character?

I don't mind. Anyway, all I'm going to say here has been say in other posts of mine.

First, Bruce is reluctant to having less experienced vigilantes helping him.

Second, he's completely obsessed with preserving human life, even his foes' lives, up to the point where he has saved the Joker's life numerous times, so I fail to see why would he allow a 12-year-old to risk his own life by fighting alonside him.

Third, there's no way that Bruce could find enough time to train this kid in a sufficiently good way, since he trained for almost a decade abroad in all kinds of time-demanding learning skills, and started fighting crime as an adult, not as a pubescent boy.

Fourth, if Bruce really sympathises with the kid and his similar tragic story, maybe he would adopt him, but in no way I can see him giving the kid the life that Bruce doesn't even want for himself. Bruce sees his crime-fighting as a duty, not as a desirable life, and I think it would be more in character to try to provide the boy all the things that weren't there for himself as a boy.... an stable and present parenthood, therapists to help the kid get past his past tragedie, and maybe raising the boy to become something more along the lines of Harvey Dent... a public, brave, honorable figure determined on saving the city with the right ways. The best explanation I've seen for why he does the opposite seems to be that Bruce was driven by the desire to see that his mission could be honorable too and not a sacrifice of his humanity, but since he doesn't see that in the first place, I fail to see why would he make such an experiment with a little kid.

Fifth, he has committed those mistakes more than three times now, replacing Robin (what a coincidence!) with similar pubescent boys. He didn't try to correct the "coming of age" problem that drove Dick away, and nowadays he lets Tim Drake be too much on his own... something that a normal persona wouldn't do after seeing the previous Robin die in such an horrific way. And Bruce is not a normal person, Bruce is tormented more than anyone else about that death. And he doesn't trust people enough, keeping almost all his allies on check (Justice League) and being unable to trust others and driving them away (Catwoman in Hush). So, his attitude to Dick, Jason and Tim is (to me) to convenient and contradictory of Bruce's character.

Take care.

 

[Dcknight]

I don't mind. Anyway, all I'm going to said here has been say in other posts of mine.

First, Bruce is reluctant to having less experienced vigilantes helping him.

Second, he's completely obsessed with preserving human life, even his foes' lives, up to the point where he has saved the Joker's life numerous times, so I fail to see why would he allow a 12-year-old to risk his own life by fighting alonside him.

Third, there's no way that Bruce could find enough time to train this kid in a sufficiently good way, since he trained for almost a decade abroad in all kinds of time-demanding learning skills, and started fighting crime as an adult, not as a pubescent boy.

Fourth, if Bruce really sympathises with the kid and his similar tragic story, maybe he would adopt him, but in no way I can see him giving the kid the life that Bruce doesn't even want for himself. Bruce sees his crime-fighting as a duty, not as a desirable life, and I think it would be more in character to try to provide the boy all the things that weren't there for himself as a boy.... an stable and present parenthood, therapists to help the kid get past his past tragedie, and maybe raising the boy to become something more along the lines of Harvey Dent... a public, brave, honorable figure determined on saving the city with the right ways. The best explanation I've seen for why he does the opposite seems to be that Bruce was driven by the desire to see that his mission could be honorable too and not a sacrifice of his humanity, but since he doesn't see that in the first place, I fail to see why would he make such an experiment with a little kid.

Fifth, he has committed those mistakes more than three times now, replacing Robin (what a coincidence!) with similar pubescent boys. He didn't try to correct the "coming of age" problem that drove Dick away, and nowadays he lets Tim Drake be too much on his own... something that a normal persona wouldn't do after seeing the previous Robin die in such an horrific way. And Bruce is not a normal person, Bruce is tormented more than anyone else about that death. And he doesn't trust people enough, keeping almost all his allies on check (Justice League) and being unable to trust others and driving them away (Catwoman in Hush). So, his attitude to Dick, Jason and Tim is (to me) to convenient and contradictory of Bruce's character.

Take care.

Pretty good point there, plus I don't think he would adopt a young boy just to not take the risk of the boy's life if someone found out who batman is.

and I think Bruce will dedicate his life to batman, not choose a normal life, to become a legend. But That's my personal view of Bruce Wayne character.

 

[The Sage]

I don't mind. Anyway, all I'm going to say here has been say in other posts of mine.

First, Bruce is reluctant to having less experienced vigilantes helping him.

True, but he isn't reluctant to working with a vigilante who's under his wing. No pun intended.

Second, he's completely obsessed with preserving human life, even his foes' lives, up to the point where he has saved the Joker's life numerous times, so I fail to see why would he allow a 12-year-old to risk his own life by fighting alonside him.

Well I'm sure initially Bruce Wayne didn't plan on having Dick Grayson fighting alongside of him. But before becoming Robin, he was already good at getting around, getting into trouble and wandering aimlessly. There's a good chance he would've been killed out there on his own. By taking him on as a partner, Bruce Wayne is able to help the boy channel his anger, and frustration into something good, as he did for himself, as well as keep an eye on him.

Grayson would've already been risking his life regardless of him becoming Robin. Making him his partner ensures teaching him the right precautions and making sure he lives.

Third, there's no way that Bruce could find enough time to train this kid in a sufficiently good way, since he trained for almost a decade abroad in all kinds of time-demanding learning skills, and started fighting crime as an adult, not as a pubescent boy.

I can't see how Bruce wouldn't be able to make the time if he deemed it important; he finds enough time to go to Wayne Enterprises to update his equipment when he needs to; he makes time build a new Batmobile or vehicle if necessary; he finds the time to wear the Playboy persona. Heck, the man found time to create contingency plans if the Justice League went rogue, as well as Brother Eye. Why wouldn't he take time out to train Dick Grayson, if he feels it'll be better for the boy? It's like saying a busy parent wouldn't take time to raise their child.

Fourth, if Bruce really sympathises with the kid and his similar tragic story, maybe he would adopt him, but in no way I can see him giving the kid the life that Bruce doesn't even want for himself.

Bruce Wayne doesn't give Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake that life; they take it themselves. Batman has forced none of them to become his partners.

Bruce sees his crime-fighting as a duty, not as a desirable life, and I think it would be more in character to try to provide the boy all the things that weren't there for himself as a boy.... an stable and present parenthood, therapists to help the kid get past his past tragedie, and maybe raising the boy to become something more along the lines of Harvey Dent... a public, brave, honorable figure determined on saving the city with the right ways.

Bruce Wayne has done his best to give his sons everything he didn't have, but as said before, it was their choice to follow his lead.

The best explanation I've seen for why he does the opposite seems to be that Bruce was driven by the desire to see that his mission could be honorable too and not a sacrifice of his humanity, but since he doesn't see that in the first place, I fail to see why would he make such an experiment with a little kid.

I totally disagree that Bruce doesn't consider his mission honorable. He's saving innocent lives, rehabilitating criminals and locking those who are incorrigible. He's making his city a better place. Perhaps what you mean is the toll the mission takes on him?

Fifth, he has committed those mistakes more than three times now, replacing Robin (what a coincidence!) with similar pubescent boys. He didn't try to correct the "coming of age" problem that drove Dick away, and nowadays he lets Tim Drake be too much on his own... something that a normal persona wouldn't do after seeing the previous Robin die in such an horrific way.

Tim Drake has proven to be a far more mature Robin than both Grayson and Todd. Like a parent, he recognizes and therefore removes some of his constraints. It's been working out pretty well.

And Bruce is not a normal person, Bruce is tormented more than anyone else about that death.

Well lol, if Bruce isn't a normal person, then why are you adhering to practices of one?

And he doesn't trust people enough, keeping almost all his allies on check (Justice League) and being unable to trust others and driving them away (Catwoman in Hush). So, his attitude to Dick, Jason and Tim is (to me) to convenient and contradictory of Bruce's character.

Bruce Wayne doesn't totally trust his allies, nor his friends. But he does trust his family, which is what Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, and Alfred are to him.

 

[Melkay]

I get your aversion against multi-quoting, Wellsy. However, I need to use it a little to address some disagreements. I'll keep it to a minimum, of course. Everything that I don't talk about here you can considert it as an agreement.

I'll skim over the death of the Flying Graysons, and Dick being taken in by Bruce. Let's fast forward to the part where Dick finds out Bruce is Batman.

The problem with this is that in the current mythology Dick didn't find out who Batman was. Bruce revealed it to the boy.

Bruce decides to involve him in the arrest of his parents' murderer. However, this only requires him in the Batcave, providing operational support (manning the computer, holding the fort, etc).

That would be a violent transformation of Dick's character, since he wouldn't be conformed with staying in the Batcave, as the comics have demonstrated over and over again.

In the current context (...) he starts making jokes (...) which begins to arrest Bruce's decline into amorality and vigilantism (...). Thus, we establish him as a counterbalance to Bruce's own psychological self-destruction.

I fail to see how jokes are supposed to counter-balance all the tragedies that you are supposed to face when you are fighting crime. I get that some people use jokes as a defense mechanism, and probably Dick would use lots of them, but would that have an actually significant part on Batman's psyche? Wouldn't those jokes be nullified with Batman's constant worry for Robin's lie in the battlefield?

But at the end, when Gordon lights up the Bat-signal, Bruce sends out Robin in his stead to answer the call.

Which takes us to the part of other people's reactions to a boy side-kick. How many allies would lose faith on Batman's rationality after that? Gordon included. How many enemies would lose respect and fear over a guy that takes a kid along with him out of sympathy? Because, how many more reasons are there? And I know we're supposed to be beyond the homophobic jokes... but what about the low-life criminals? Criminals are not "politically correct". Wouldn't they start laughing with the whole "Batman must be gay" thing? Sure, they will still fear him, just not so much as before. "Hey, who's afraid of the big gay bat?".

Melkay, you've essentially been stating that you've problems with his introduction, and the reasons behind Bruce accepting Dick into his crusade. In part, Dick does force himself on Bruce (and that doesn't come across here, I know).

Batman puts dangerous, deranged, psychotic mass murderers in control all the time. These are villains that literally force their relationship with Batman. And there are the copycats, vigilantes who force themselves over and over into helping Batman take on Gotham's criminal element. But don't they become criminals in the process? And Batman doesn't care if they are doing ti for a right cause, he doesn't care if they force themselves into that... he just handles them until they're in control.
We're talking about dangerous strong umpredictable adults here. Is a young kid supposed to present so much trouble? His methods towards the boy wouldn't be so drastic, sure, bu there are a plethora of things to do. And if they boy keeps on trying to look for his revenge, he's committing a crime. I know it's hard to lock him up, but that's what Batman does all the time. It's not out of character for him. He can spare him several times and try to help him but there are limits Bruce is not willing to cross.

I'd also probably say that, if Dick/Robin were to be included in the next film, Alfred would push for Bruce to take him on as well, noting the effect Dick's presence has on Bruce's mental state.

Agreed. It would just have to be an adapted origin. I'm not so sure Alfred would approve of a 12-year-old going into fights with criminals.

Given that Dick had been training to be a circus performer, I can accept him running around on rooftops, and he could probably ride a glorified dirt bike or something.

We have seen multiple times, both in comics and film, that fighting Gotham's criminal world is much more than running and jumping around rooftops or riding a bike. If that was the case, Bruce's seven+ years abroad training were completely unneccessary.

If you still have problems with this, then I'd say you're having problems with the character more than the introduction.

Not at all. I still have a problem with what you say because it presents new contradictions with the material, which I respect to some degree (your Robin is too conformist) and because it keeps Dick's age at the start of his partnership.

This is what I wrote to Crook, pointing out an origin that doesn't detract too much from the original, but fixes my main problem with it...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=16140188#post16140188

I know that isn't the subject of this thread, but rather than pick apart posts sentence by sentence (...) I felt an example would be a better counter-argument than a text wall.

Don't worry, this IS exactly the thread's subject: Robin adaptation into the film franchise. Nothing else. Arguing about his values and flaws in the comic narrative is just a way to discuss what to adapt and what not into film. We just disagree on the specific adaptation, but at least we agree on what should be discussed here.

Take care.

 

[Melkay]

True, but he isn't reluctant to working with a vigilante who's under his wing.

If he didn't have control over the boy previous the their partnership, how is he going to control him after granting him access and tools to do what he wants? Not only that, but Robin disobeys him more than once, and that is integral to their relationship. And there's the problem of sufficient skills. A kid not so well trained as Batman is going to have a hard time with keeping both criminals and innocent people alive, and that is a chance Batman may not be willing to take.

Grayson would've already been risking his life regardless of him becoming Robin. Making him his partner ensures teaching him the right precautions and making sure he lives.

The Joker risks his life and Batman finds the way to protect him anyway, even risking his own on the process. The copycats risked their lives all the time. And being near Batman when he faces the criminals he fights is not really the safest place around. Not to the mention that it would be a major distraction for Bruce.

I can't see how Bruce wouldn't be able to make the time if he deemed it important; he finds enough time to go to Wayne Enterprises to update his equipment when he needs to

... and sleeping at his meetings (I was so glad when Nolan included that part).

he makes time build a new Batmobile or vehicle if necessary

Fox may be doing that for him.

he finds the time to wear the Playboy persona.

Which is completely necessary to preserving his identity.

Heck, the man found time to create contingency plans if the Justice League went rogue, as well as Brother Eye. Why wouldn't he take time out to train Dick Grayson, if he feels it'll be better for the boy? It's like saying a busy parent wouldn't take time to raise their child.

Well, it's not like that at all. Raising a kid a training him into becoming a super-hero have dozens of light years in between. The later is completely more time consuming. And what he did with the contingency plans was totally a part of his job... is he going to stop that? You just proved the guy has the most tight schedule ever. What is he going to push aside?

Bruce Wayne doesn't give Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or Tim Drake that life; they take it themselves. Batman has forced none of them to become his partners.

But he allows them. If your 12-year-old kid wants to start doing drugs, no matter what, are you going to allow them?... Or are you going to act like the father figure you never had and work so he doesn't kill himself recklessly?
Some people compared the dangers of being a Batman side-kick with the dangers of driving a car. If that is what you think, then we can agree to disagree.

Bruce Wayne has done his best to give his sons everything he didn't have, but as said before, it was their choice to follow his lead.

A minor's choice. A minor without a tutor. A tutor who happened to be Bruce himself.
A minor's choice.

I totally disagree that Bruce doesn't consider his mission honorable. He's saving innocent lives, rehabilitating criminals and locking those who are incorrigible. He's making his city a better place. Perhaps what you mean is the toll the mission takes on him?

Absolutely, I mean the toll... and perhaps I should have said "more honorable". Like he says, he's waiting for Gotham to learn how to save itself. And he found Harvey Dent more heroic and honorable than him.

Tim Drake has proven to be a far more mature Robin than both Grayson and Todd. Like a parent, he recognizes and therefore removes some of his constraints. It's been working out pretty well.

I agree it was a correct decision, but we are talking about Bruce here, with all his trust and protectiveness issues.

Well lol, if Bruce isn't a normal person, then why are you adhering to practices of one?

I'm not. I'm adhering to the character's well-known psychological traits.
Read my last response to Guard. Look for the Hannibal Lecter example.

Bruce Wayne doesn't totally trust his allies, nor his friends. But he does trust his family, which is what Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, and Alfred are to him.

That may be after a long while working with them, but in their initial moments Bruce had no such bond with Dick, Jason or Tim. And I'm arguing about his initial consent to having a pre-adolescent side-kick. If you read my last response to Crook (it's linked in my respons to Wellsy) you'll see that my main problem is only Dick's age and Dick's training time.

 

[The Sage]

If he didn't have control over the boy previous the their partnership, how is he going to control him after granting him access and tools to do what he wants? Not only that, but Robin disobeys him more than once, and that is integral to their relationship.

By becoming the student, Dick Grayson is subjecting himself to the rules that are laid down, therein giving Bruce control. With every lesson, be it philosophy or fighting, Bruce tames Grayson and helps him channel his emotions.

Like any father/son, mentor/student relationship, Batman and Robin will not always agree and there clashes. But over time, Robin matures and becomes better, as one does with a learning curve. The disobedience lessens.

And there's the problem of sufficient skills. A kid not so well trained as Batman is going to have a hard time with keeping both criminals and innocent people alive, and that is a chance Batman may not be willing to take.

Of course he wouldn't take that chance. Batman obviously isn't going to let Robin go out with him if he isn't properly prepared. That's what the weight lifting, philosophy, tactics, martial arts, and obstacles are for.

The Joker risks his life and Batman finds the way to protect him anyway, even risking his own on the process. The copycats risked their lives all the time. And being near Batman when he faces the criminals he fights is not really the safest place around. Not to the mention that it would be a major distraction for Bruce.

If Batman is confident in Robin being properly prepared, it won't be much of a distraction. And I'm sure before going out that he'd instruct Robin to avoid the big bosses or psychopaths such as the Joker.

... and sleeping at his meetings (I was so glad when Nolan included that part).

Indeed.

Fox may be doing that for him.

Which means Bruce has more time to instruct Grayson.

Which is completely necessary to preserving his identity.

Of course.

Well, it's not like that at all. Raising a kid a training him into becoming a super-hero have dozens of light years in between. The later is completely more time consuming. And what he did with the contingency plans was totally a part of his job... is he going to stop that? You just proved the guy has the most tight schedule ever. What is he going to push aside?

I've also proven that the guy tends to make time for tasks he deems important. And why wouldn't raising and training his partner not be part of his job?

But he allows them. If your 12-year-old kid wants to start doing drugs, no matter what, are you going to allow them?...

Of course you're not going to let your child do drugs, it's harmful towards them. At the same time, it's stupid to tell your child not to do drugs while holding a cigarette in your hand. But clearly, Bruce Wayne doesn't find fighting crime to be harmful since he's doing it himself.

Or are you going to act like the father figure you never had and work so he doesn't kill himself recklessly?

By training and watching over his partners, that's exactly what Bruce Wayne is doing: ensuring they don't kill themselves recklessly.

Some people compared the dangers of being a Batman side-kick with the dangers of driving a car. If that is what you think, then we can agree to disagree.

The levels of danger are obviously to a higher degree, even though I understand the comparison.

A minor's choice. A minor without a tutor. A tutor who happened to be Bruce himself.
A minor's choice.

Yes, a minor's choice...the same choice as a minor that Bruce made.

I suppose that by letting Bruce go through with his mission, Alfred wasn't acting responsibly.

Absolutely, I mean the toll... and perhaps I should have said "more honorable". Like he says, he's waiting for Gotham to learn how to save itself. And he found Harvey Dent more heroic and honorable than him.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I agree it was a correct decision, but we are talking about Bruce here, with all his trust and protectiveness issues.

Which he still has, but he recognizes that Drake is more capable enough that some of the constraints can be removed.

I'm not. I'm adhering to the character's well-known psychological traits.
Read my last response to Guard. Look for the Hannibal Lecter example.

How far back is that?

That may be after a long while working with them, but in their initial moments Bruce had no such bond with Dick, Jason or Tim. And I'm arguing about his initial consent to having a pre-adolescent side-kick. If you read my last response to Crook (it's linked in my respons to Wellsy) you'll see that my main problem is only Dick's age and Dick's training time.

If Bruce didn't have any initial bond with them to begin with, he wouldn't have made the choice that he did.

Isn't twelve years old the age of a teenager?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Why are you guys still going on about a 12 year old Robin? Nolan has already showed that he can take characters and slightly adapt them to fit his world, but at the same time keeping their main traits if need be. Why is it hard to imagen a 18 year old Robin? I think it could prove to be quite interesting.

 

[DCnightwing23]

Well perhaps if dick grayson was introduced to the franchise he would be introduced as a abandoned ophan in his teens, maybe 16 or something like that.

And while duck grayson was little, maybe 6 or 7, he runs into a bruce wayne (in his teens) and they discuss there losses, bruce knowing that dick is a orphan that lost his parents to the mob. They discuss how gotham can be saved and how both of them will avenge there parents death. So dick (a child) and bruce (a teenager) become somewhat friends with tensions and differences. Then Bruce suddenly leaves gotham without anyone knowing (Batman Begins). And then years later after bruce had returned and had become the dark knight, batman is in a footrace to catch a thug that escaped the asylum. And then batman is about to catch the thug, when suddenly someone jumps from the rooftop and topples the thug, that someone is Nightwing. Nightwing then introduces himself to batman saying "hello bruce". Nightwing knew that bruce had become batman from their talks in the past about catching the criminals one day. Batman says "how do you know who i am?" Nightwing responds "oh bruce, you dont remember little old me, how many abandoned orphans do you run into when your young huh bruce?". Then bruce (batman) says "Dick?"
Nightwing says "in the flesh, you didnt think id survive in the narrows did you? Well people also didnt think bruce wayne wouldnt come back after 7 years".

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Why are you guys still going on about a 12 year old Robin? Nolan has already showed that he can take characters and slightly adapt them to fit his world, but at the same time keeping their main traits if need be. Why is it hard to imagen a 18 year old Robin? I think it could prove to be quite interesting.

Because an 18 year old Robin does not mirror the tragedy that Bruce Wayne suffered, the same tragedy that made him take Dick in and make him his ward. By making him that much older all likeness, relatableness and paralleles are removed. It also makes no sense to adopt and 18 year old orphan as a son/ward, that's creepy since Since Bruce at this time is only 30/31. If Nolan wants to remove the beauty and actual point of the Batman/Robin relationship then he can go ahead ad do that, but ultimately the reasons, themes and intrigue of the why and how of Robin will disappear in favour of realism.

 

[Crook]

18-year old Robin doesn't mean 18 year-old Dick Grayson who's freshly orphaned. If you read back, you'll see that most, if not everyone, is for a 12-year old being taken in under Bruce's wing. Difference is we don't want him to immediately become Robin. Ideally he'd be trained for a couple years before ever donning that costume.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Because an 18 year old Robin does not mirror the tragedy that Bruce Wayne suffered, the same tragedy that made him take Dick in and make him his ward. By making him that much older all likeness, relatableness and paralleles are removed. It also makes no sense to adopt and 18 year old orphan as a son/ward, that's creepy since Since Bruce at this time is only 30/31. If Nolan wants to remove the beauty and actual point of the Batman/Robin relationship then he can go ahead ad do that, but ultimately the reasons, themes and intrigue of the why and how of Robin will disappear in favour of realism.

I didn't mention it because of all that realism crap. I mentioned it because I think it would be interesting. A older Dick could be in the same sorta position as Bruce was in BB. Bruce could see the anger and rage within Dick, but also sees the thirst for justice and potential to fight crime. He recognizes himself in this troubled teen, he then takes him in. Bruce takes on the role of Ra's kinda, but brings teachings of his real father as well.

"What do we do when we fall Bruce? We learn to pick ourselves up".
"What do we do when we fall Dick? We learn to pick ourselves up".

Could make for some really cool scenes with them training together in the Bat-cave.

Thomas Wayne played a major part in Bruce's decision to become Batman in Nolans verse, I think Bruce taking on someone similar to how he was and showing him how to use his anger and vengeance for good would be very interesting. Particularly in Nolans world.

 

[Melkay]

Like any father/son, mentor/student relationship, Batman and Robin will not always agree and there clashes. But over time, Robin matures and becomes better, as one does with a learning curve. The disobedience lessens.

I get that. But Bruce has shown too many trust/control/protectiveness issues. And he doesn't handle them well, especially when he's disobeyed.

Like I said, I get it, I'm just not so sure Bruce does. Like you said, what applies for normal people doesn't apply to this man.

Of course he wouldn't take that chance. Batman obviously isn't going to let Robin go out with him if he isn't properly prepared. That's what the weight lifting, philosophy, tactics, martial arts, and obstacles are for.

Is he going to send him away, assign teachers, give him more than probably 5 years so he can become a fully prepared young adult? If that's what he's going to do, fine by me. That kind of training can somehow equate to what Bruce had. But nothing less. No underage Robin fighting on the streets. Not that.

If Batman is confident in Robin being properly prepared, it won't be much of a distraction. And I'm sure before going out that he'd instruct Robin to avoid the big bosses or psychopaths such as the Joker.

Right, cuz' Robin has proven so many times before taht he is incapable of disobeying his boss, is that right? And what is the appropriate level of training so Bruce can feel confident? Less than a year? That's what teenagers need in judo classes to go from one level to another.
A 12 year old prepared Robin is just not believable.

I've also proven that the guy tends to make time for tasks he deems important. And why wouldn't raising and training his partner not be part of his job?

Because it's a lot of time, and a lot of dedication. I don't know how much you think it takes, but in reality would be a lot. Ra's had a lot of assistants and didn't have Bruce's tight agenda... just training Robin.

Of course you're not going to let your child do drugs, it's harmful towards them. At the same time, it's stupid to tell your child not to do drugs while holding a cigarette in your hand. But clearly, Bruce Wayne doesn't find fighting crime to be harmful since he's doing it himself.

There's a great difference between the sacrifice of oneself and the sacrifice of another. Bruce can do everything he wants to himself, he thinks he can take it. But actually agreeing to let a young boy go through the same it's not even comparable.
Besides, you're somewhat validating my point with the "parent with a cigarette thing. Bruce is not really Dick's father. He's not. What he can be is an adoptive father, but parents have to meet requirements, standards, rules to be able to adopt. In this case, that's not happening. Bruce may still believe that fighting crime is harmful (how could he not? among other things, his childhood sweetheart was killed because of that) but nothing would be there to prevent him from making an adoption... except his own awareness of his capabilities... or the fact that no reasonable adopting agency will trust the public Bruce Wayne with a troubled teenager.

By training and watching over his partners, that's exactly what Bruce Wayne is doing: ensuring they don't kill themselves recklessly.

Allowing them to go into fightint that exceeds their initial skills it's not ensuring anything. There's a very great risk. Unless the training is extensive enough before the kid goes into fled missions, there is a terrible risk.

Yes, a minor's choice...the same choice as a minor that Bruce made.

?????? Bruce didn't become Batman as a minor. Making the choice and actually walking the paths are too very different things (this sounds like Matrix).
Bruce was more than 20 years old when he became a vigilante. Robin is 12, maybe 13. The differences are so obvious it aches to see them on the same sentence.

I suppose that by letting Bruce go through with his mission, Alfred wasn't acting responsibly.

1. Alfred is not Bruce. 2. Bruce was a full grown-up. 3. I don't care about acting responsibly or not, I car eabout acting in coherence with one's other actions and beliefs.

How far back is that?

Here it is:

"Having a vulgar and poor use of language and a stupid mind is a character flaw.
Hannibal Lecter is a very flawed character...
.... BUT he wouldn't have THAT particular flaw. He wouldn't be a stupid, vulgar, foul-mouthed idiot. Those would be flaws that are inconsistent with the character. He wouldn't have THAT flaw.

I'm saying that Batman wouldn't have an untrained 12 year-old as a side-kick. No matter what. Not because it would be a flaw, because Batman is an inherently FLAWED character... but he would not do that. And just because he did at some point in comics and many writers have had to work with that doesn't mean it's not a contradictory idea."

It's a strange comparison but I hope it makes sense to you.

If Bruce didn't have any initial bond with them to begin with, he wouldn't have made the choice that he did.

Funny of you to say that, doesn't that strike you as odd? As El Payaso said, wouldn't me more in character to Bruce to fund an orphanage, or a center for skilled teenagers, instead of feeling this level of empathy for this ONE boy with just a similar story to his?
Okay, maybe it was just a one time thing.... oh, wait... it was more than three times.
It is too covenient.

Isn't twelve years old the age of a teenager?

Not until 13-14.

 

[raybia]

Look face it robin is as important to batman as alfred. Everyone blames robin for ruining the last two bat films but that couldnt be farther from the truth. The only problem with robin in BF and BR was that he was to old. This is supposed to be a comic book movie, so make it like comic book and add the boy wonder. He doesent have to be robin, I would settle for dick grayson, as long as he is living with bruce by the end of the film.

I think Nolan should add...more cowbell!

 

[Ere]

I get that. But Bruce has shown too many trust/control/protectiveness issues. And he doesn't handle them well, especially when he's disobeyed.

Like I said, I get it, I'm just not so sure Bruce does. Like you said, what applies for normal people doesn't apply to this man.



Is he going to send him away, assign teachers, give him more than probably 5 years so he can become a fully prepared young adult? If that's what he's going to do, fine by me. That kind of training can somehow equate to what Bruce had. But nothing less. No underage Robin fighting on the streets. Not that.



Right, cuz' Robin has proven so many times before taht he is incapable of disobeying his boss, is that right? And what is the appropriate level of training so Bruce can feel confident? Less than a year? That's what teenagers need in judo classes to go from one level to another.
A 12 year old prepared Robin is just not believable.



Because it's a lot of time, and a lot of dedication. I don't know how much you think it takes, but in reality would be a lot. Ra's had a lot of assistants and didn't have Bruce's tight agenda... just training Robin.



There's a great difference between the sacrifice of oneself and the sacrifice of another. Bruce can do everything he wants to himself, he thinks he can take it. But actually agreeing to let a young boy go through the same it's not even comparable.
Besides, you're somewhat validating my point with the "parent with a cigarette thing. Bruce is not really Dick's father. He's not. What he can be is an adoptive father, but parents have to meet requirements, standards, rules to be able to adopt. In this case, that's not happening. Bruce may still believe that fighting crime is harmful (how could he not? among other things, his childhood sweetheart was killed because of that) but nothing would be there to prevent him from making an adoption... except his own awareness of his capabilities... or the fact that no reasonable adopting agency will trust the public Bruce Wayne with a troubled teenager.



Allowing them to go into fightint that exceeds their initial skills it's not ensuring anything. There's a very great risk. Unless the training is extensive enough before the kid goes into fled missions, there is a terrible risk.



?????? Bruce didn't become Batman as a minor. Making the choice and actually walking the paths are too very different things (this sounds like Matrix).
Bruce was more than 20 years old when he became a vigilante. Robin is 12, maybe 13. The differences are so obvious it aches to see them on the same sentence.



1. Alfred is not Bruce. 2. Bruce was a full grown-up. 3. I don't care about acting responsibly or not, I car eabout acting in coherence with one's other actions and beliefs.



Here it is:

"Having a vulgar and poor use of language and a stupid mind is a character flaw.
Hannibal Lecter is a very flawed character...
.... BUT he wouldn't have THAT particular flaw. He wouldn't be a stupid, vulgar, foul-mouthed idiot. Those would be flaws that are inconsistent with the character. He wouldn't have THAT flaw.

I'm saying that Batman wouldn't have an untrained 12 year-old as a side-kick. No matter what. Not because it would be a flaw, because Batman is an inherently FLAWED character... but he would not do that. And just because he did at some point in comics and many writers have had to work with that doesn't mean it's not a contradictory idea."

It's a strange comparison but I hope it makes sense to you.




Funny of you to say that, doesn't that strike you as odd? As El Payaso said, wouldn't me more in character to Bruce to fund an orphanage, or a center for skilled teenagers, instead of feeling this level of empathy for this ONE boy with just a similar story to his?
Okay, maybe it was just a one time thing.... oh, wait... it was more than three times.
It is too covenient.



Not until 13-14.

Who said Dick needs to become Robin when he's 12 years old? I think if Nolan used Robin, he should make him a little kid when his parents were murdered and Bruce adopted him, but not have him become Robin until he's about 16-18 years old. Also, he could make it so that Batman trains him at self-defense because Dick asked for it, but he has no idea that the boy will use that training to become a crime fighter in the future.

 

[The Guard]

Anyone else having trouble seeing where I was going with my posts?

You tell me a character is needed, I expect you to be able to tell me why. I expect you to be able to tell me this in the context of what "needed" means.

And when I pointed out how THAT doesn't denote a need...you tried again. And so on and so forth. Your "neccessity comes from priority" nonsense tells me you're more interested in arguing semantics than addressing the point. Your dozen sentences are, by the way, incorrect. A need for "quality", for better stories, does not equal "neccessity" of one particular character. And now you've used the words indispensable, and imperative. Catwoman is neither of these things. The only way Catwoman becomes "neccessary" is if you ask the question "Is Catwoman neccessary in order to have a Batman mythos that has Catwoman in it"?

So we're done with that discussion. Like I said, I'm more or less done with semantics beyond the basic meanings involved.

I'm not even going to begun the discussion about closemindedness. Suffice it to say, there's a huge difference between a person who says "I see what you're saying, but here's why that could work and does make sense" and someone who says "It couldn't work and it doesn't make sense". A huge one.

If you argue against Robin working with Batman than you are arguing against his relevance.

Robin is a very personal element of Batman, and by extension, the stories involving him are "personal" to Batman and his mythology. There is a difference between "personal" and "solo". If you really feel the need to make statements like "Maybe those stories rescinded Robin because he was an impediment for a good Batman personal story", then "maybe" there's no hope for a serious discussion with you on that matter.

What is "quality", and which Batman stories are "better" is down to your opinion. I don't usually argue opinions. I argue facts. I'm not going to try to "categorize" and "rank" almost 70 years of stories. I've read hundreds of fantastic Batman stories, many of which have just as much relevance to Batman's mythology as YEAR ONE, TLH, etc, but don't get nearly the publicity of those products.

I'm not even sure why you brought up this "How convenient that DC made each subsequent Robin young instead of old" nonsense. That's half the point of the character, Melkay. He's young, he's not entirely cynical yet, and he's got room to grow and learn. Robin is supposed to be young. Could he be older? Sure, but the themes surrounding Robin often work with a younger character. Sure, Robin could be 25, but he's not. That's not what the concept has been. Why would writers want to get around "coming of age" issues? Robins are about rebirth.

The rest of your statements boil down to "Gee, it's convenient that when a young white, dark-haired boy died, another one was the one chosen for his successor as Robin. That's true, Melkay. How bout that? That's what writers wanted, so that's what the story featured. Is there some suspension of disbelief required? Sure. But either you understand how fiction works...or you don't. Don't get me started on how many things are "convenient" in the Batman mythology, comics and film, and how much suspension of disbelief each version requires.

You keep harping about Batman taking on a kid as a sidekick is a contradiction to his character. Which character does this contradict, Melkay? The one from the films? The one you reinvented in your head? Because again...for almost 70 years...the source material has shown us clearly that Batman has allowed a kid to be his sidekick.

I get it. You don't think he'd do that.

He does do that.

If what you mean to say is "The film's Batman doesn't do this and wouldn't do this", you need to say that. Because you've got everyone here thinking you're just in freaking denial about what Batman would or wouldn't do.

And even then...the film's Batman doesn't do that now. That doesn't prove he'd never do it. Nothing proves he'd never do it. Nothing short of Batman, in a Nolan film, saying "I will never allow a child to be my sidekick", will prove that.

And no, his bit with the copycats at the beginning of THE DARK KNIGHT does not prove he'd never train and take on a partner.

"I don't need help" in the middle of a simple drug bust doesn't equate to Batman never needing help in Gotham City for the entirety of his career. Clearly he did need help on some level, as the film shows us.

Why did I make the statement about Bale? The same reason anyone brings up anything that isn't relevant. Because I felt like it. Because it has something to do with the idea of Robin on film, which this thread has dealt with...not because it has anything to do with whether Robin can be translated to film appropriately. What exactly do you want, a public apology for being wrong?

Who said you were attached Gordon as a character? No one, I suppose. Semantics again. Do you like Gordon as a character? Do you believe the mythos would suffer for his removal or lack of existence?

I was not just arguing about the name "The Joker". I argued that he could be called "Snidely Whiplash", and that the character elements could remain intact.

You are correct. I laid semantic traps, and you fell into them. Many of them. And it's because you insisted on arguing such. But I do not enjoy arguments on that level. I can't you seriously, and I can't take myself seriously.

Interesting. Now you've started to use the word "contradiction" to mean "unfaithful". Be careful about going there. You're trying to tell me Batman's relationship with Catwoman isn't contradictory? She's a criminal. He's a vigilante hunting criminals.

I referenced the Batman mythology and "the characters" being able to be interchanged. I did not say that Selina and Talia are exactly interchangeable, though they do share many similar themes. The contradictory elements exist with both of them, but not in the same manner. You don't need more imagination, you need a larger knowledge of the Batman mythos. Batman may have lain with Talia. He also married and had a daughter with Selina at one point.

Batman's double identity is not crucial to crimefighting. He does not need to lead two lives to fight crime. "Double identity" implies a life with two identities. You're talking about the fact that he's a vigilante (Batman) being what makes him begin to lose his humanity. Yes, and what of it? My statement about him keeping the double identity while he fights crime in order to keep his humanity intact is accurate. Semantics won't change that.

Your nonsense about "writer to writer" doesn't change the fact that for almost 70 years, every writer has been working on a character who works with a kid named Robin.

You completely ignored the fact that I agreed Robin was a flawed concept, and missed the point. Not going to argue semantics with you on that one. When you say "flawed concept=flawed character", I assume this means you believe Batman to be a flawed character as well.

It has been more located for reasons that have nothing to do with probability but with drama and coincidence

I notice that once again, you ignored my point.

Regardless, this one I have to quote.

A concept that exists mainly for drama and coincidence...

What concept does that sound like...

Ohhh. Robin.

Look who's talking about hypocrisy. And here is the point I wanted to make since the beginning of the post: YOU are a massive hypocrite. Because your main argument against the adaptation of the origin has been... what?.... "You lack imagination".

You all lack imagination....

When I said to you that your disbelief was broken, I wasn't kidding. What is the correct amount of imagination, Guard? What is the appropriate level? What is given to us in the comics? That's nonsense. Even the comics have contradictions. And trying to be indifferent towards that would make you one of two thins: or a 100% Hardcore
Purist (synonym with imbecile) or a Hypocrite.
See, I don't believe you're an imbecile. I really don't. You've got your compulsion about not agreeing and all that but you're not really Stupid. Not generally at least.
But you can be a hypocrite, because your main argument against people like El Payaso or Crook is "You all lack imagination". We could all agree that "Imagination" or "Disbelief" are completely subjective, and not quarrel about that but express our concerns about them, in a subjective manner... but no... they lack imagination.

I've not argued against the adaptation of the origin. Nor have I been indifferent to the fact that the comics have contradictions. I have openly admitted this.

What's the correct level of imagination? Really? Hmm, probably the level where you don't allow a lack of ability to imagine something to ruin your enjoyment of a story.

Imagination is subjective.

You know what's not? Someone saying "I don't think I buy that".

Why don't they buy it?

"It's not realistic".

Oh? Not realistic enough? In the concept of people who put on costumes and fight crime in a city ridden with supervillains?

The problem would seem to be a lack of imagination.

Just because something is in comics means you're supposed to believe it?

Sigh...
You said:


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


So I replied, pointing out that the comics very clearly show that they have had the training.
And faced with that, you come back with

"Just because it's there, does that mean you're supposed to believe it"?
I guess if you disbelieved it before, once you see it's there, maybe...yeah.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
If you, questioning something, don't believe it when proof of it exists, I suspect you will never believe it.
That is a much deeper problem than a lack of imagination.

BATMAN BEGINS shows Bruce Wayne getting hit with sticks. After that, it shows him knowing how to swordfight.

No scene is ever shown that shows him training to swordfight as a beginner.

Do you know why I believe he can swordfight well?

Because he is shown swordfighting well.

Now...you, on the other hand, are going "You expect me to believe it just because it's shown?"

All a movie should reasonably have to do for us to believe Robin has been trained well enough to fight crime is:
1. Show him successfully fighting crime
2. Talk about or show some of his training, and the fact that Bruce trained him

And if a Batman movie with Robin in it does this, why would you then have trouble believing that Robin, in context, is good enough to fight crime by Batman's side?

 

[RustyCage]

Is it just me, or does Bruce look like Steve Valentine from Estate of Panic here? t:

He definitely does that stare too, in the "Not that it needs to be said..." panel!

I don't think Steve would make a good Bruce Wayne/Batman in a film though, I just thought that the visual similarity there, paired with the fact that the character he plays on Estate of Panic is a reclusive, dark, mysterious Mansion host was pretty remarkable, if not grin-worthy. t:

 

[The Guard]

Kindly speak for yourself. Absurdity has never been synonymous with interest or beauty. For me, and I'm sure for plenty of other people as well. And there's a difference between imagination, and a stretch of imagination.

Everything I say is my opinion, and me speaking for myself. I would think, again, that this would be obvious.

How about next time, instead of being a complete ass about it, you just say "You know, I disagree, and here's why".

You don't find the "less than normal" elements of Batman and Robin a huge draw for their characters? The very concept of Batman and costumed vigilantism is absurd in itself. A lot of the elements of the Batman mythos are.

Correction, he is not the average 12-year old kid that I would know. I have met kids around that age who are incredibly skilled at acrobatics and martial arts, for example. Just like I have met people in their mid-20s who share physical traits and skills as Bruce. These cases, however abnormal and rare, are plausible.

I don't care about the kids you've met in the context of whether or not Robin is a realistic concept. It's a matter of imagination, not reality. Let me point this out one more time: Stop telling me stories about how the kids you personally know aren't like one of the most talented an driven characters in the DC Universe, a character who is shown to be capable of what he does, and to be one of the best.

And you've met people in their mid twenties who have all the skills of Bruce Wayne? I find that hard to believe. Immensely. I find it hard to believe that any of those people you know would be able to wage war for years and years if they went around in a cape and cowl.

But...I can imagine it.

A highly-skilled 12-year old that goes out and fights crime on a daily basis, I would go as far to say is impossible.

A lot of elements of the Batman mythology could be deemed "impossible". That's not an appropriate argument against the use of elements from it.

How is that at all a case for plausibility? "He is not average, so all these incredible skills and borderline luck of the draw he possesses that would be beyond his age, are automatically justified". How does that work?

No, they are not automatically justified.

He's a comic book character. A comic book vigilante. His very surival, like Batman's, requires a suspension of disbelief. A willingness to embrace the imaginative idea that someone like this could survive.

It's not about size? In this field and especially when referencing a pre-pubescent boy? C'mon.

If you have people telling you fighting is about size, you have people who don't understand combat.

Fighting is about speed and skill, and a proper application of strength, not just strength. It always has been. The Batman mythos references this constantly. In fact, this has always been one of Robin's edges against his foes. That his foes underestimate him because of his size and age.

I'm gonna have to ask why people are so adamant for Robin to begin at 12. Honestly. Why does it have to be so young? What exactly is wrong with Dick being taken under Bruce's wing at this age, and spending a few years training?

I don't see too many here who are adamant for Robin to be out fighting crime at 12 in a movie version of the character.

 

[The Guard]

Oh...Sage, almost 70 years of Batman doing what Melkay says he wouldn't do would tend to indicate that Melkay is wrong about what Batman would or would not do. And he has no proof that Bruce would never take on a partner from the movies. It's basically just his opinion. The Batman in his head would never take on a partner because of the risks involved, the time it would take to train him, etc.

None of which holds up as anything that couldn't be overcome with a decent explanation to create a fantastic adaption of Robin on film.

As long as you want to honor the character as he's always existed.

Robin is not neccessary, but he's very possible.

Unless you want to reinvent Batman, as Melkay seems to want to do...and then hey, anything's "not possible".

 

[The Sage]

I get that. But Bruce has shown too many trust/control/protectiveness issues. And he doesn't handle them well, especially when he's disobeyed.

Like I said, I get it, I'm just not so sure Bruce does. Like you said, what applies for normal people doesn't apply to this man.

With shining examples of his now grown up son in Dick Grayson, why wouldn't Bruce understand the relationship?

Is he going to send him away, assign teachers, give him more than probably 5 years so he can become a fully prepared young adult? If that's what he's going to do, fine by me. That kind of training can somehow equate to what Bruce had. But nothing less. No underage Robin fighting on the streets. Not that.

Why would Bruce send them away for the same training he's undergone when he knows it and has mastered it himself? Bruce's own teaching and supervision has crafted Robin into a great crimefighter, as shown by Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. In fact Dick Grayson is considered to be second only to Bruce Wayne in fighting and detective skills and the gap between them is closing quick. The training equates.

Right, cuz' Robin has proven so many times before taht he is incapable of disobeying his boss, is that right? And what is the appropriate level of training so Bruce can feel confident? Less than a year? That's what teenagers need in judo classes to go from one level to another.
A 12 year old prepared Robin is just not believable.

A twelve year old prepared Robin could be somewhat plausible if done well, though I understand the need to age him for some.

Why does it matter if Robin is capable of disobeying his boss? He's also capable of listening to him and working as a good partner. Only Bruce Wayne knows what level of training is appropriate. Whether it's less than a year more than a year or not. Point is, he won't let Robin go out crime fighting until he believes he's ready.

Because it's a lot of time, and a lot of dedication. I don't know how much you think it takes, but in reality would be a lot. Ra's had a lot of assistants and didn't have Bruce's tight agenda... just training Robin.

A lot of what Bruce does takes time and dedication, but he devotes himself to it because it's important to him. The same applies with instructing Robin. The amount of time is irrelevant; the significance is what matters.

There's a great difference between the sacrifice of oneself and the sacrifice of another. Bruce can do everything he wants to himself, he thinks he can take it. But actually agreeing to let a young boy go through the same it's not even comparable.

Of course it is. If Bruce believes Dick Grayson's dedication and think he can take it, he'll allow him to do it.

Besides, you're somewhat validating my point with the "parent with a cigarette thing. Bruce is not really Dick's father.

You mean his biological father. That has no relevance whatsoever. The moment he adopted Dick Grayson, he became his guardian and adopted parent.

He's not. What he can be is an adoptive father, but parents have to meet requirements, standards, rules to be able to adopt.

The only difference between an adoptive father and a biological one is blood. Both have the same rules and responsibilities.

In this case, that's not happening. Bruce may still believe that fighting crime is harmful (how could he not? among other things, his childhood sweetheart was killed because of that) but nothing would be there to prevent him from making an adoption... except his own awareness of his capabilities... or the fact that no reasonable adopting agency will trust the public Bruce Wayne with a troubled teenager.

Then all Bruce would have to do is demonstrate a new level of maturity and show he's moved beyond burning down his house and has become a more responsible adult without losing his mask.

Allowing them to go into fightint that exceeds their initial skills it's not ensuring anything. There's a very great risk. Unless the training is extensive enough before the kid goes into fled missions, there is a terrible risk.

Then I guess it's a good thing the training is extensive.

?????? Bruce didn't become Batman as a minor. Making the choice and actually walking the paths are too very different things (this sounds like Matrix).
Bruce was more than 20 years old when he became a vigilante. Robin is 12, maybe 13. The differences are so obvious it aches to see them on the same sentence.

Correction: Bruce Wayne doesn't become Batman until he's in his 20s. He makes the decision to pursue his criminals and begin training when he's eight. So technically, he started earlier than any of the Robins.

1. Alfred is not Bruce.
2. Bruce was a full grown-up. 3. I don't care about acting responsibly or not, I car eabout acting in coherence with one's other actions and beliefs.

1. Alfred was Bruce's guardian.
2. Bruce was eight when he started his training for the mission.
3. Acting responsible and acting according to your beliefs and obligations are pretty much the exact same thing.

Here it is:

"Having a vulgar and poor use of language and a stupid mind is a character flaw.
Hannibal Lecter is a very flawed character...
.... BUT he wouldn't have THAT particular flaw. He wouldn't be a stupid, vulgar, foul-mouthed idiot. Those would be flaws that are inconsistent with the character. He wouldn't have THAT flaw.

I'm saying that Batman wouldn't have an untrained 12 year-old as a side-kick. No matter what. Not because it would be a flaw, because Batman is an inherently FLAWED character... but he would not do that. And just because he did at some point in comics and many writers have had to work with that doesn't mean it's not a contradictory idea."

It's a strange comparison but I hope it makes sense to you.

It does, but your argument is flawed because Batman wouldn't have an untrained twelve year-old as a sidekick.

Funny of you to say that, doesn't that strike you as odd? As El Payaso said, wouldn't me more in character to Bruce to fund an orphanage, or a center for skilled teenagers, instead of feeling this level of empathy for this ONE boy with just a similar story to his?

Not really. Usually when someone is touched by another who's endured a tragedy similar to his/her own, they go out of their way to help them. Same case here: Bruce sees a boy has endured the lost of his parents as he did. He sees the rage, and frustration boiling inside him. He sees the potential to be great as well as to be self-destructive. So Bruce takes it upon himself to help him.

Okay, maybe it was just a one time thing.... oh, wait... it was more than three times.
It is too covenient.

It's not anymore convenient than Bruce demanding a sign for how how to strike fear into criminals and having a bat crash through his window.

Not until 13-14.

Then really all Bruce has to do is train him and let Robin join him a year later.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Why does Dick have to be 12? Honestly, people beat this horse till it's a pile of unidentifiable mush...In the animated series he was around 18 as Robin. His parents might have been killed when he was 12 but we never see him in costume at such a young age. That's the way it should be. It makes more sense that way and I'm sure someone like Nolan would see it the same way. I don't particularly care if Robin is ever introduced but if he were it could be done very well with very few changes. Just make him a couple years older to eliminate the need for explaining or showing a 5 year span of time and revamp the costume to something a little more in line with Batman's and there ya go...there's nothing wrong with Robin when he's done right.

I will agree with those that don't want him in 3 or even 4, though. In movie-time Batman's still only about a year and a half at most into this thing. And I assume 3 will pick up right where TDK left off so give it another couple films. Let Batman be established and fully know what he's doing before he starts training and working with a partner, I say.

 

[The Sage]

Why does Dick have to be 12? Honestly, people beat this horse till it's a pile of unidentifiable mush...In the animated series he was around 18 as Robin.

When the animated series started, he was already Robin. We don't know what age he began. Tim Drake began his career as Robin in his early teenage years on the show though.

 

[Crook]

Everything I say is my opinion, and me speaking for myself. I would think, again, that this would be obvious.

How about next time, instead of being a complete ass about it, you just say "You know, I disagree, and here's why".

I'll gladly oblige soon as you type a sentence that fits said criteria of personal opinion. When you write out statements that leave no basis for subjectivity, I'm going to rightly assume you're putting it out as fact.

You don't find the "less than normal" elements of Batman and Robin a huge draw for their characters? The very concept of Batman and costumed vigilantism is absurd in itself. A lot of the elements of the Batman mythos are.

I consider absurdity to be something which is wildly illogical or just plain stupid. It's a negative connotation, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to look at it in a positive light.

Are costumed heroes a silly concept? To an extent, yes. To another, they're perfectly plausible. You'd need to have a few screws loose in your head to take up vigilantism, so playing dress-up isn't too far out of that skewed mentality.

I don't care about the kids you've met in the context of whether or not Robin is a realistic concept. It's a matter of imagination, not reality. Let me point this out one more time: Stop telling me stories about how the kids you personally know aren't like one of the most talented an driven characters in the DC Universe, a character who is shown to be capable of what he does, and to be one of the best.

It's a fictional character. Of course he's gonna be capable of everything he does. My point is Robin's plausibility of existence at that point is an incredible stretch in comparison to other characters of the mythos. Fantasy elements aside, all good literary characters are grounded with realistic sensibilities. Dick could have all the heart in the world, I would not doubt that for one second. But that isn't enough. Physically, he will not be able to keep up with the standards his heart has set out.

And you've met people in their mid twenties who have all the skills of Bruce Wayne? I find that hard to believe. Immensely. I find it hard to believe that any of those people you know would be able to wage war for years and years if they went around in a cape and cowl.

But...I can imagine it.

I said I've met people who share similarities with Bruce. As in guys in their mid-20s with incredible tenacity along with acute physical and mental skill that would impress most people. I don't recall saying I've met the real-world equivalent of a comic book Bruce Wayne.

A lot of elements of the Batman mythology could be deemed "impossible". That's not an appropriate argument against the use of elements from it.

Depends on what we're referring to here. There are different standards that apply. Science and magic, for example, hold a different standard than capabilities of a "real" person.

No, they are not automatically justified.

He's a comic book character. A comic book vigilante. His very surival, like Batman's, requires a suspension of disbelief. A willingness to embrace the imaginative idea that someone like this could survive.

I understand this. Let me repeat again that the suspension of disbelief can only go so far. In the case of a vigilante, factors such as physical condition, size, and age play into how believable these characters will come across to an audience. I'm sure I don't need to point out why 12-year old Dick Grayson stands out from 40-year old Bruce Wayne.

If you have people telling you fighting is about size, you have people who don't understand combat.

Fighting is about speed and skill, and a proper application of strength, not just strength. It always has been. The Batman mythos references this constantly. In fact, this has always been one of Robin's edges against his foes. That his foes underestimate him because of his size and age.

You misunderstand, I am not arguing that fighting is solely about size. I'm refuting your statement that implies size plays no role.

I don't see too many here who are adamant for Robin to be out fighting crime at 12 in a movie version of the character.

Well then you're mixing an argument you've had with someone else. I realize in the past few days you've been talking about comics with Melkay, but this thread and everyone else has been about Robin's translation to film.

 

[Melkay]

You tell me a character is needed, I expect you to be able to tell me why. I expect you to be able to tell me this in the context of what "needed" means.

I did. You may fool some people when you say you don't want semantics anymore in the discussion, but you only stopped multi-quoting because you're completely ignoring what I say to you... Everything is necessary when it comes dows to a goal... and my goal, my Priority, is having a good Batman story. I told you that, for me, a good story lacks significant contradictions. That's the context you were asking for. I was hoping you would tell me what is your priority, and we could start talking seriously. You didn't. You don't seem anymore interested in having this conversation as in trying to get all the frustration you can't get rid of in your daily life. Fine by me, but don't waste my time.

For me, a Good Story is what is necessary, and my idea of a Good Story lacks significant contradictions.
That's me. Is that your idea too?

I'm not even going to begun the discussion about closemindedness. Suffice it to say, there's a huge difference between a person who says "I see what you're saying, but here's why that could work and does make sense" and someone who says "It couldn't work and it doesn't make sense". A huge one.

So.... you want me to agree with you to not be closedminded? Did you have a lobotomy recently? I don't think it works on film, and I could not say something I don't believe. I am not sticking to my guns, if I did I wouldn't want Robin in film. But I am proposing an adaptation. That's what I'm doing, like Ace Of Knaves, for instance. I don't like the character, I don't like what has been done in comics with Batman, but I do believe some of that (only the main problems) can be fixed with a slight adaptation. That's all.
Maybe you don't get the concept of closemindedness either.

If you argue against Robin working with Batman than you are arguing against his relevance.

Why? That doesn't have any logic. I'm arguing against their unchanged partnership because I'm arguing against its quality. I can't argue against its relevance. And I said this multiple times before, especially in the last post. Another reason for you not to quote that.

Robin is a very personal element of Batman, and by extension, the stories involving him are "personal" to Batman and his mythology. There is a difference between "personal" and "solo". If you really feel the need to make statements like "Maybe those stories rescinded Robin because he was an impediment for a good Batman personal story", then "maybe" there's no hope for a serious discussion with you on that matter.

The term was yours, pal. You were the one who said those stories wre personal stories that didn't need Batman. You.

What is "quality", and which Batman stories are "better" is down to your opinion. I don't usually argue opinions. I argue facts.

.... really?

"Everything I say is my opinion, and me speaking for myself. I would think, again, that this would be obvious." - Guard

Keep changing the goalposts, dear. Maybe that will buy you some time.

I'm not going to try to "categorize" and "rank" almost 70 years of stories.

You don't have to. We're arguing about the origin stories here, which are the parts that would be adapted into film. If you don't feel up to the task of discussing other elements, we'll cross those bridges when we get ther.

Robin is supposed to be young. Could he be older? Sure, but the themes surrounding Robin often work with a younger character. Sure, Robin could be 25, but he's not. That's not what the concept has been. Why would writers want to get around "coming of age" issues? Robins are about rebirth.

The writers got around the coming of age issue by adding different conflicts to the next ones, but having one Robin after the other without Bruce caring to make something more on the long-term (El Payaso's orphanage idea) seems a little odd and convenient. Conveniency is a normal and innocuous creative tool until it reaches the point of reader disbelief. And the story then becomes "less good", because it's not working with the established rules of that world.

Is there some suspension of disbelief required? Sure. But either you understand how fiction works...or you don't. Don't get me started on how many things are "convenient" in the Batman mythology, comics and film, and how much suspension of disbelief each version requires.

"Don't get me started"? Is that a cop out I'm reading there?
I do understand how fiction works. More than you would think. I deal with it on a daily basis. That's why I keep pointing out at the convenient thing... we all know what the writers want: sell. But, despite the obvious truths Saint has said, marketing can and has compromised narrative quality many times before. I'm pointed out at what writers wanted and how successfully were they at having their way or not. We do it with TV series all the time, when an actor gets fired and they give us the explanation for it.... do we buy it? It depends on the writing, and how forced or uncalled for was the decision.
You know the levels of disbelief in film are much higher than in literature.

You keep harping about Batman taking on a kid as a sidekick is a contradiction to his character. Which character does this contradict, Melkay? The one from the films? The one you reinvented in your head? Because again...for almost 70 years...the source material has shown us clearly that Batman has allowed a kid to be his sidekick.

And for 70 years the same comics told us that Batman is fully dedicated to protecting any human life... and for 70 years readers had time to compare his training level to Robin's. And that's contradictory.

That's why I keep bringing the writers intentions. Robin was created for a purpose... sell... and it was always a very relevant part of the comics since its early years. And, as one of the most important things in the bat mythos... is untouchable. Writers have to keep it. It's a DC directive. "We need a Robin... and we get a Robin." Pure and simple. But it's not because it fits into the story. The reasons for having Robin for more than 60 years in literature has nothing to do with quality, or with coherent character designs.

Are you telling me that the entire comics history isn't contradictory? You need your head examined if you think that?

I get it. You don't think he'd do that.

He does do that.

And that's why I say it is contradictory. Period.

If what you mean to say is "The film's Batman doesn't do this and wouldn't do this", you need to say that.

I'm not saying he doesn't do it. I'm saying it's not congruent with other aspects of his character. Just because you're too rigid to not take things for granted because of longevity doesn't mean the rest have to do the same.

And even then...the film's Batman doesn't do that now. That doesn't prove he'd never do it. Nothing proves he'd never do it. Nothing short of Batman, in a Nolan film, saying "I will never allow a child to be my sidekick", will prove that.

Absense of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absense, right?
That's the same argument I sue to convince people that Batman's next villain will be Donald Duck. t:

(and they say I'm the one in denial)

And no, his bit with the copycats at the beginning of THE DARK KNIGHT does not prove he'd never train and take on a partner.

Agreed. He would only take a fully prepared partner.
A mildly disobedient 12-year-old boy with less than 5 years of training wouldn't be a prepared partner. Or any minor for that matter.

Why did I make the statement about Bale? The same reason anyone brings up anything that isn't relevant. (...) What exactly do you want, a public apology for being wrong?

Not at all. There are other ways to achieve dignity. If Bale knew you, maybe he'd say something like "Guard whines like a little girl". You know, some karma at work.

Who said you were attached Gordon as a character? No one, I suppose. Semantics again.

Let me seee... you.

"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?"

Semantics, huh?

I was not just arguing about the name "The Joker". I argued that he could be called "Snidely Whiplash", and that the character elements could remain intact.

So, a name change was more than enough for you to make a different character. I'm right again.

You are correct. I laid semantic traps, and you fell into them. Many of them. And it's because you insisted on arguing such. But I do not enjoy arguments on that level. I can't you seriously, and I can't take myself seriously.

... there, there.
So you dislike semantics all the time but you want the drop it when the wind it's no in your favor.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Guardie.

Interesting. Now you've started to use the word "contradiction" to mean "unfaithful". Be careful about going there. You're trying to tell me Batman's relationship with Catwoman isn't contradictory? She's a criminal. He's a vigilante hunting criminals.

WHAT? I meant unfaithful?
Let me humor you: I said before that Batman doesn't have any power over his relationship with Catwoman. When she commits a crime, he hunts her. From time to time, he spares her (something not out of the realm of his character) and in other rare times he works with her, but that's not a partnership he's responsible for. She's not his protegé. She's not a minor. She has proven herself quite prepared.
And everything she does still doesn't make Bruce trust her enough to be a part of the family. And rightfully so.
Their relationship have too little in common with the topic in question.

Batman's double identity is not crucial to crimefighting. He does not need to lead two lives to fight crime. "Double identity" implies a life with two identities. You're talking about the fact that he's a vigilante (Batman) being what makes him begin to lose his humanity. Yes, and what of it? My statement about him keeping the double identity while he fights crime in order to keep his humanity intact is accurate. Semantics won't change that.

Riiight... one of his identity is that of a masked vigilante... and that identity makes him slowly lose his own identity, embracing more and more of the traits he created upon his 'creature', of his Bat-man.
But hey, he created the Batman persona (his second identity) to preserve his humanity. And yet, it slowly eroded it. What an irony.
And he doesn't need a dual identity to fight crime! No! He does it just for fun. He can take off the mask and hunt dangerous supervillains without it, anyday. And, in case the place was dark and someone didn't recognize him, he could say "I'm Bruce Wayne and I'll be waiting for your visit after I foil all your evil plans".
Who cares about keeping his first identity secret? It's not crucial to crime-fighting, anyway... is it?

Your nonsense about "writer to writer" doesn't change the fact that for almost 70 years, every writer has been working on a character who works with a kid named Robin.

... For the right reasons? Or for marketing and tradition purposes? Writers are supposed to maintain the general mythos, especially one as big as Robin, no matter how good its premise is.
Are you arguing about quality here or not?

You completely ignored the fact that I agreed Robin was a flawed concept, and missed the point. Not going to argue semantics with you on that one. When you say "flawed concept=flawed character", I assume this means you believe Batman to be a flawed character as well.

Not really. He is flawed, and should be... but not contradictory. And now that can't be changed in comics (read the previous quote) at least it shouldn't be transferred to film. Change it or leave it.

I notice that once again, you ignored my point.
Regardless, this one I have to quote.
A concept that exists mainly for drama and coincidence...
What concept does that sound like...
Ohhh. Robin.

The concept not being the Batcave but the fact that it has been the most discovered Batman base. It defies logic and odds. It's just a flawed part of the concept, not the entire idea. And that's the part that should be removed, correcting the entire concept.
Robin's age when he started fighting crime is a wrong part of a larger concept. Change that idea to fix the concept. I'm not arguing againt the presence of Robin in comics... I'm arguing against the quality of that presence. Change the quality and keep the concept. Easy logic.

I've not argued against the adaptation of the origin. Nor have I been indifferent to the fact that the comics have contradictions. I have openly admitted this.

?????

"The unchanged origin works just fine."
- Guard

I know people forget about what they wrote... I'm a living example of that. But all I've been saying here, over and over again, is that contradictions exist and should be removed and adapted.

Why are you arguing here again? Did you got lost from another forum?

What's the correct level of imagination? Really? Hmm, probably the level where you don't allow a lack of ability to imagine something to ruin your enjoyment of a story.

Wonderly! For the first time in my life, someone has given me the only reason to watch "My Little Pony"!

I can imagine lots of things. I just want to know what the wirters imagined. When I, as a reader, can come up with a better adaptation of their work, things are not going well.

And now you tell people that it's their own fault they don't enjoy bad stories?
Now that your birthday has passed, tell me, how old are you now? Ninety?

Imagination is subjective.
You know what's not? Someone saying "I don't think I buy that".
Why don't they buy it?
"It's not realistic".
Oh? Not realistic enough? In the concept of people who put on costumes and fight crime in a city ridden with supervillains?

The problem would seem to be a lack of imagination.

Look again for what Robert McKee said about melodrama, unrealistic motivations and bad writing. You can search the "McKee" as a key word. I posted it.

If you, questioning something, don't believe it when proof of it exists, I suspect you will never believe it.
That is a much deeper problem than a lack of imagination.

Use your imagination for this scene: Alfred sees Batman get down from the Batmobile with little Robin. This is the first time Alfred sees the boy in costume, and asks in a worried voice: "Sir, are you taking young master Richard with you on your work?" "Sure, Alfred, why not?" "Well, is he prepared?" "Yeah, he is. I've been giving him classes since last week".

That happens in comics, and I wouldn't believe it anyway.
It would be a joke.
For me, a 12 year-old starting his training and his side-kick field missions at the same age.... TWELVE... is not realistic.

BATMAN BEGINS shows Bruce Wayne getting hit with sticks. After that, it shows him knowing how to swordfight.
No scene is ever shown that shows him training to swordfight as a beginner.
Do you know why I believe he can swordfight well?
Because he is shown swordfighting well.

And because there is a very clever line from Alfred to let us know how that Bruce has been "gone for 7 years".
Seven years. All those years, before and after being trained by the League, were years of preparation.

And until you have a similar training time with that 12 year-old, it won't be believable. No matter how much you try.

Now...you, on the other hand, are going "You expect me to believe it just because it's shown?"

All a movie should reasonably have to do for us to believe Robin has been trained well enough to fight crime is:
1. Show him successfully fighting crime
2. Talk about or show some of his training, and the fact that Bruce trained him

And if a Batman movie with Robin in it does this, why would you then have trouble believing that Robin, in context, is good enough to fight crime by Batman's side?

- Determined adult training for seven years (before getting on the job) with some of the most skilled warriors on earth, not doing anything else but train, on the tutelage of a cold master with no respect for human life.

- A determined 12 year old training with one (very busy) man (who happens to be extremely adamant about not taking human life) and starting his job before his thirteenth birthday.

.......... words elude me.

 

[cmarpro]

this is my first post so go easy guys. just a thought of what robin/ grayson could look like

 

[AnorexicBatman]

WOW! Very noir! I could imagine that Dick Grayson in a more stylized version of Nolan's movies. Which is to say if Robin ever happens, it will be pretty close to the one above