Robin or no Robin?

[Oswald]

None of those things are in his personality though are they? Take away Superman, Clark Kent is the 99%. Take away Batman and Bruce Wayne is the 1%.

Mmm, and this is because you say so, no? Dude, perhaps Clark Kent is more sympathetic or interesting to you than Bruce Wayne, but it doesn't mean he isn't such a rich character, with or without Batman. In fact, much richer and with a lot more shades than Clark.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

What? I don't think you got what I said there.

 

[Oswald]

What? I don't think you got what I said there.

You wanted to say that for you the most important aspect of Batman is Batman himself, the paraphernalia (the costume, the acrobacies, the bat-vehicles, the sidekicks, etc), and the most important aspect of Superman is Clark Kent, not Superman (logical, the Krypton paraphernalia is totally old-fashioned and ridiculously naive). Ok, good for you, but it doesn't mean Bruce Wayne isn't a better and more complex character, from far.

If you take away the gadgets and wealth , you have a very different Batman. But you still have Batman. Bruce can still be Batman. The suit, the car, will be different but he could still train and be Batman. Take away the powers and Clark can't be Superman, he's just a farm boy with a great family. A regular joe. Now he's relatable, but it would cease to exist because there would be no Superman. You dont make comics about regular people. Wasn't that the point of Aronofsky's year one? Or am i remembering it incorrectly?? Where he doesn't have that kind of wealth but he's still a version of Batman.

Yeah, that would've been such an interesting movie...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Actually, I was making a reference to Occupy Wall Street, and in their civilian lives, Bruce Wayne is as extraordinary as they get, the peak of the social mointain, there are so few like him (1%) whereas Clark Kent is run of the mill, and is one of millions (99%) who props up men like Bruce Wayne.

Given the films tend now to be focusing on their civilian side more, it presents an interesting turn, Bruce Wayne has become the one who is more vociferously extraordinary.

Anyway, this is massively off topic.

 

[BLobo]

No he doesn't. Show me a couple issues of Batman/Detective Comics where Batman actively tries to combat poverty, or disease?

Well, if he, not only fights crime with his bare hands, but also donates millions to charity, he is helping to fight more than one of the world´s problems, don´t you think? And don´t ask me to show you issues and do the job for you. If you were a comic reader, you would know that Bruce Wayne is often referred as a philanthropist. Not only in comics, but also in movies and tv shows. This is a well known fact. Don´t ask me to do your homework for you. Just start paying attention.

Simple answer. Bill Gates is not a superhero. He's a real man who has always wanted to be rich. He's donated 25% of his wealth (almost $30 billion) over the past few years and will donate all he has left over the next 25-30.

Are you saying that because Bruce decides to beat up criminals with his bare hands he should instead donate all his money? I´m not sure i understand your logic.

Batman doesn't do his best to stop corruption. He punches people, more people = more fists.

He never uses his resources to battle crime, just his body why doesn't he donate a few hundred million to the police, orphanages, and poorer areas?

We hear about it in TDKR, but that's pretty much it. Nothing he ever does changes Gotham, because if he did, the comic books would run out of stories to tell. So he can't do all he can.

And what would "his best" be? And how do you know that, whatever that is, would work better than what he generally does? You don´t know.

You oversimplify Batman´s role in crime combat, wich once again suggests that you either don´t read comics or you have some sort of vendetta against the character, hence your effort in undervaluing everything that he does.

He doesn´t solve Gotham´s problems because he is not perfect. He is a human trying to do what he thinks it´s the best for his city. He fails, but that´s not because he doesn´t try to succeed.

If you like Robin so much, you are in for a big disappointment, because i don´t see any decent director in the near future going as far as giving Batman a teenage sidekick with a colorful outfit. Even Joel Schumacher had the common sense of making Robin older than what he is in comics. Burton didn´t like Robin, Nolan didn´t like Robin, Bale didn´t like Robin and i doubt any decent artist would like the idea of a dark figure like Batman walking around with a teenager wearing the most stupid outfit ever designed in the history of mankind. No matter how you twist it, it just doesn´t sound right. Ain´t happening man. Just save your arguments and forget about it.

 

[shauner111]

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well, if he, not only fights crime with his bare hands, but also donates millions to charity, he is helping to fight more than one of the world´s problems, don´t you think? And don´t ask me to show you issues and do the job for you. If you were a comic reader, you would know that Bruce Wayne is often referred as a philanthropist. Not only in comics, but also in movies and tv shows. This is a well known fact. Don´t ask me to do your homework for you. Just start paying attention.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

(shifting the) Burden of proof
*(see –*onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Since you're clearly so much more well versed in the world of the funny books than I, it won't take you long to find instances of Bruce Wayne successfully combating poverty.

See, I'm a sheep, and thought I had to agree with the likes of Grant Morrison, David Goyer, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, in that the cyclical nature of comic books means Bruce Wayne will never win. But you clearly know better.

Are you saying that because Bruce decides to beat up criminals with his bare hands he should instead donate all his money? I´m not sure i understand your logic.

>the point







>your head

And what would "his best" be? And how do you know that, whatever that is, would work better than what he generally does? You don´t know.

You really haven't understood a word, have you?

You oversimplify Batman´s role in crime combat, wich once again suggests that you either don´t read comics or you have some sort of vendetta against the character, hence your effort in undervaluing everything that he does.

Everything Batman does is reactionary, he can't apprehend people before they become criminals. It's Bruce Wayne's job (in theory) to prevent the conditions that creates criminals.

For an analogy, Batman fights symptoms, Bruce Wayne fights the cause.

Except he doesn't really, because if he did, Batman would have no reason to exist, which would mean no more comic books/films/cartoons ot whichever media you are in.

He doesn´t solve Gotham´s problems because he is not perfect. He is a human trying to do what he thinks it´s the best for his city. He fails, but that´s not because he doesn´t try to succeed.

Narratively, he very rarely tries. He's described as a philanthropist in the same way Superman is a scientist (he's incredibly intelligent). They very rarely do what they're described as.

If you like Robin so much, you are in for a big disappointment, because i don´t see any decent director in the near future going as far as giving Batman a teenage sidekick with a colorful outfit. Even Joel Schumacher had the common sense of making Robin older than what he is in comics. Burton didn´t like Robin, Nolan didn´t like Robin, Bale didn´t like Robin and i doubt any decent artist would like the idea of a dark figure like Batman walking around with a teenager wearing the most stupid outfit ever design in the history of mankind. No matter how you twist it, it just doesn´t sound right. Ain´t happening man. Just save your arguments and forget about it.

In the ridiculous comic books, every Robin wears a predominantly black uniform (moreso than Batman) and were 17 (except Damian, because he's a genetically engineered continuity mess now) when they took the role. The role was to train them to take on other roles.

Also FYI Bale said his favourite Batman story was Dark Victory, Tim Burton was going to be in Batman (dropped to focus on Batman), Batman Returns (he was even cast- Marlon Wayans got the role), but Burton felt the cast was too large, and before he was dropped from a third film, Wayans was set to return. Also, Chris Nolan did a film with Robin in.

Do you even Batman, bro?

 

[shauner111]

Bale never said his favorite story was Dark Victory. He said it was his favorite because of the artwork. I believe that because he truly can't stand Robin.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Oh okay, I must've misremembered. He must just like Tim Sale.

Still, despite all his posturing. He was in a film with Robin. Not that he ever had a choice.

 

[Oswald]

Oh okay, I must've misremembered. He must just like Tim Sale.

Still, despite all his posturing. He was in a film with Robin. Not that he ever had a choice.

If you really think the character Joseph Gordon-Levitt performed in TDKR was Robin (the Robin we're talking about) you've a serious problem with reality. Otherwise, you're saying that ******** to mask your lack of weight arguments.

 

[shauner111]

Oh okay, I must've misremembered. He must just like Tim Sale.

Still, despite all his posturing. He was in a film with Robin. Not that he ever had a choice.

Who knows maybe he liked the story too. Which is pretty much another Long Halloween. But we know he hates Robin. The classic version of him who isn't a "man" yet and wears costumes alongside Batman. He didnt have to deal with that. Blake isn't really Robin anyway, it's just a nod.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Who knows maybe he liked the story too. Which is pretty much another Long Halloween. But we know he hates Robin. The classic version of him who isn't a "man" yet and wears costumes alongside Batman. He didnt have to deal with that. Blake isn't really Robin anyway, it's just a nod.

I guess it's entirely possible that he enjoyed the story.

I don't think there are many who care for the classic version of Robin anymore, at least narratively. Not even DC Comics themselves, hence the role now being filled by near grown men in largely black costumes.

As for John Blake's Robin, he was pretty damn similar, just not wearing a mask and "R" badge. He's the archetype, Jonathan found a way to have his cake and eat it too, because I don't think you can cal a main character a nod, his name is a nod to who he really is though.

If you really think the character Joseph Gordon-Levitt performed in TDKR was Robin (the Robin we're talking about) you've a serious problem with reality. Otherwise, you're saying that ******** to mask your lack of weight arguments.

Firstly top kek there, mr. shift the burden of proof.

Secondly: You. The Robin you are talking about (8 years old scaly pants right?).

 

[Oswald]

Secondly: You. The Robin you are talking about (8 years old scaly pants right?).

And what Robin are you talking about?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

17 years old, black cape (gold or dark red inseam) heavily black costumes, trainee position, not sidekick as such (This is the current form of Robin). Given that's from the comic books (an inherently more silly world) that's a good place to start for adaptation.

 

[BLobo]

Since you're clearly so much more well versed in the world of the funny books than I, it won't take you long to find instances of Bruce Wayne successfully combating poverty.

You´re missing the point. The main appeal of this character is him fighting crime. Batman is an entertainment figure, an action hero, that´s why in the movies we see him fighting crime instead of going to Africa to give food and hugs to starving children.

But the fact that the comics don´t focus on him fighting poverty, doesn´t mean that he doesn´t do it. If he didn´t do it, comics, movies and tv shows wouldn´t mention him as a philanthropist. Even in the last movie that´s well stated.

Wayne Enterprises have tons of subsidiaries, and some of them focus on providing for those who have less, like the Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation. If for you this isn´t enough proof that Bruce actually helps to fight poverty, i don´t know what else to tell you. You´re not blind, but you wanna act like one.

Everything Batman does is reactionary, he can't apprehend people before they become criminals. It's Bruce Wayne's job (in theory) to prevent the conditions that creates criminals.

For an analogy, Batman fights symptoms, Bruce Wayne fights the cause.

Except he doesn't really, because if he did, Batman would have no reason to exist, which would mean no more comic books/films/cartoons ot whichever media you are in.

What makes you think Bruce has all the resources to put an end to poverty? Dude, you´re just assuming too much. Poverty is a much more complex subject than you might think. He could donate all his money, and poverty would still exist.

Also FYI Bale said his favourite Batman story was Dark Victory

My favourite Batman stories also have Robin, but i just don´t like the character. I tolerate him, but i prefer Batman working alone.

Also, Chris Nolan did a film with Robin in.

Was he a teenager fighting crime alongside Batman? No. So i don´t think Nolan was crazy about the idea. His Robin was a blink to the audience. Nothing more than that.

Tim Burton was going to be in Batman (dropped to focus on Batman), Batman Returns (he was even cast- Marlon Wayans got the role), but Burton felt the cast was too large, and before he was dropped from a third film, Wayans was set to return

Tim Burton doesn´t care too much about Robin. He was talked into having Robin in the movie, but he wasn´t very excited about it. This is well documented. Just watch and read interviews with him.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Every time I watch The Dark Knight Rises, I just get more excited for Robin. No more ****ing around, WB. Make it happen.

 

[shauner111]

Batman should kick him off that ledge.

 

[Shikamaru]

Poverty doesn't just disappear with a bit of money. It is much more complex than that. Or to quote Sebastian Blood in Arrow, "Not every problem in this city can be solved with money."

Gotham's problems extend far beyond just high crime rates. It has decades of history of corruption behind the scenes - corruption in the GCPD, in the judges, in the rich and higher classes in general, etc. Those problems won't just go away with a bit of cash. That's why Bruce created the image of the Batman. It was to have a larger-than-life figure that can strike fear into Gotham's criminals and the corrupt. That same level of fear and larger-than-life presence couldn't be replicated by a young normal rich dude bound by the legal limits (well, it can because Bruce is Batman, but you know what I mean ).

 

[Oswald]

17 years old, black cape (gold or dark red inseam) heavily black costumes, trainee position, not sidekick as such (This is the current form of Robin). Given that's from the comic books (an inherently more silly world) that's a good place to start for adaptation.

And what does he do as a trainee? He goes into action, or just trains in the cave and makes the dirty and boring work of Bruce? In the first case it would be the same as the old naif Robin, in the second it wouldn't be necessary he wears a cape or a costume. Why the hell would he need a costume? Is Batman the figure which inspire fear in the criminals, not a teenager with cape and eye mask...

Anyway, what I mean is the Robin figure is dispensable, it was born to attract kids and it has been developed (Robin itself or any of the other members of the Bat-family) to fill numbers and numbers of the Batman collections. It isn't a problem of how they wear, is a concept problem: Batman is a solitary and tragic figure, being encircled by kids and teenagers doesn't provide anything to his drama (unless glorious exceptions like Jason Tood and the Under the Hood arch)

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

And what does he do as a trainee? He goes into action, or just trains in the cave and makes the dirty and boring work of Bruce?

Both.

Is Batman the figure which inspire fear in the criminals, not a teenager with cape and eye mask...

Why do you keep assuming Robin would be a direct translation from panel to page? No other character ever has been, anyway, there's quite a few Robin suits that do away with the Domino mask. All it would take is for a sufficient adaptation of Robin to be as dark as Batman. I'm no talented writer, but setting the scene, from the goons perspective:

You're patrolling a warehouse for Oswald Cobblepot. Security has been upped given Batman has been dismantling Cobblepot's operation over the past three months.

The lights go out.

A muffled scream and dull thuds can be heard in the distance.

Gunshots illuminate darkness as your friends scream "It's him! IT'S THE BATM--" before being silenced with a sickening cracking sound.

You hide, as long as you hide Batman can't get you. The screams are getting further away. You've won. But, you can hear something else now.

Unsettling.

Maniacal laughter, enough to make Joker breathless.

You look up, and all you can see are red, glowing eyes. Like it could be the face of the devil himself, and he's laughing at you.

He pounces at you from the darkness, and you see his colours, black and red, like hellfire and brimstone, he's bright because he's confident, he's taken you because you're pathetic.

And there we go, a sufficiently dark premise for an introductory scene of Robin, taken just from one of his nicknames- The Laughing Daredevil, he, in a classic story, out-laughed Joker and the fact Dick Grayson wears a mask with glowing red eyes.

Anyway, what I mean is the Robin figure is dispensable, it was born to attract kids and it has been developed (Robin itself or any of the other members of the Bat-family) to fill numbers and numbers of the Batman collections.

Every character except Bruce is dispensible. I still don't see why you're stuck on the genesis of the character. Both Batman and Robin were cash grab characters.

It isn't a problem of how they wear, is a concept problem: Batman is a solitary and tragic figure

If this were true you'd be right.

being encircled by kids and teenagers doesn't provide anything to his drama (unless glorious exceptions like Jason Tood and the Under the Hood arch)

Except for the fact that it strengthens Bruce thematically to his father in giving him a tangible physical legacy, provides a sense of mortality and an expiration date, almost, to Bruce's time as Batman they provide windows in to Bruce's psyche given the fact he is more emotionally immature than them, presenting the interesting dichotomy of despite having around half a decade of physical maturity, is emotionally around half a decade more immature, this is then furthered in the fact they present Bruce with the second chance at not only his mission, but his personal life too, as besides thr crimefighting they all grow into well adjusted men.

It really shouldn't be surprising what they add given they're intended to be (like some of the early rogues) mirrors of Bruce.

 

[shauner111]

You're patrolling a warehouse for Oswald Cobblepot. Security has been upped given Batman has been dismantling Cobblepot's operation over the past three months.

The lights go out.

A muffled scream and dull thuds can be heard in the distance.

Gunshots illuminate darkness as your friends scream "It's him! IT'S THE BATM--" before being silenced with a sickening cracking sound.

You hide, as long as you hide Batman can't get you. The screams are getting further away. You've won. But, you can hear something else now.

Unsettling.

Maniacal laughter, enough to make Joker breathless.

You look up, and all you can see are red, glowing eyes. Like it could be the face of the devil himself, and he's laughing at you.

He pounces at you from the darkness, and you see his colours, black and red, like hellfire and brimstone, he's bright because he's confident, he's taken you because you're pathetic.

That's all good until me and my friends get a closer look at him, and see that it's a "kid" or "teenager". Then we all burst out laughing, the jokes start flying. Even as he kicks our ass we can't help but crack jokes!

 

[Oswald]

If this were true you'd be right.

So you think Batman isn't a solitary and tragic figure? And how's that? Sincerely I don't know what to answer, it's like if someone says sky isn't blue or cakes aren't sweet...

Why do you keep assuming Robin would be a direct translation from panel to page? No other character ever has been, anyway, there's quite a few Robin suits that do away with the Domino mask. All it would take is for a sufficient adaptation of Robin to be as dark as Batman

Here's the issue: Robin CAN'T be as dark as Batman, because his nature isn't dark. Batman is a traumatized man whose parents were killed in front of him when he was 8 years old, and who uses all his fortune to take revenge against the criminals. He's an exaggerated character, a pulp one, but his concept is, I wouldn't say dark, but adult, a caricature of the feelings of anger and impotence we all experiment when we face irrational, random violence.

Robin is a boy whose parents are killed in front of him, and who is adopted by a viglante millionaire and trained to be his... sidekick? Trainee? Heir? There's nothing adult (dark, if you prefer) in his concept, because he was conceived to attract the kids, to make they think they could battle evil beside Batman. You can make realistic, adult, versions of Batman, Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, etc, because ther are based in adult concepts, but it's impossible to make a dark version of Robin, because he isn't dark. It's like make a dark-adult version of Barney the dinosaur, you can try but the result will be ridiculous.

Of course, I'm always talking of Robin as the figure who actively helps Batman in his crusade, not a kind of young Alfred. If you are imagining Robin in action for me is the same that the original Robin, even if he's wearing a darker costume.

Except for the fact that it strengthens Bruce thematically to his father in giving him a tangible physical legacy, provides a sense of mortality and an expiration date, almost, to Bruce's time as Batman they provide windows in to Bruce's psyche given the fact he is more emotionally immature than them, presenting the interesting dichotomy of despite having around half a decade of physical maturity, is emotionally around half a decade more immature, this is then furthered in the fact they present Bruce with the second chance at not only his mission, but his personal life too, as besides thr crimefighting they all grow into well adjusted men.

It really shouldn't be surprising what they add given they're intended to be (like some of the early rogues) mirrors of Bruce.

For me, and this is personal opinion, the one really interesting is Jason Todd, because he's the one who really is more mature than Bruce and shows him his own madness and the futility of his actions. As far as I know, the others sidekicks just serve to reaffirm the Batman role, and that's not interesting for me.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

So you think Batman isn't a solitary and tragic figure? And how's that? Sincerely I don't know what to answer, it's like if someone says sky isn't blue or cakes aren't sweet...

Jim Gordon's debut- Detective Comics #27, mere pages after Batman.

Dick Grayson's debut- Detective Comics #38, less than a year after Batman.

Alfred Pennyworth's debut- Batman 16, 4 years after Batman.

I could go on.

Here's the issue: Robin CAN'T be as dark as Batman, because his nature isn't dark.

That's just not true. For the past 5 years Robin has been a murderous genetically engineered Al Ghul spawn. Let's also not forget the original dark Robin, Jason Todd who was a homeless child, thief, drug user etc and doled out severe injuries, used guns and may too have murdered someone.

The Silver Age ended almost 30 years ago. Characters can be different in and out of costume.

Batman is a traumatized man whose parents were killed in front of him when he was 8 years old, and who uses all his fortune to take revenge against the criminals.

Dick Grayson/Jason Todd/Tim Drake is a traumatised young man whose parents were murdered in front of him when he was [varied] years old, and he uses all his resources to take revenge against the criminals.

He's an exaggerated character, a pulp one, but his concept is, I wouldn't say dark, but adult, a caricature of the feelings of anger and impotence we all experiment when we face irrational, random violence.

Thank Zod neither Richard, Jason or Tim are exaggerated, or suffered anger, impotence, or do something ridiculous like try to fight crime.


Wait...

Robin is a boy whose parents are killed in front of him, and who is adopted by a viglante millionaire and trained to be his... sidekick? Trainee? Heir? There's nothing adult (dark, if you prefer) in his concept, because he was conceived to attract the kids, to make they think they could battle evil beside Batman.

You keep going back to his creation, as if all comic book characters aren't children's characters.

They're all children's characters. Oh, what's that Timmy? Someone bullied you at school? Gave you a severe beating? Well that's alright! Wanna know why? I know you're strong! Just like [Batman/Superman/Captain Marvel]. But you just keep it hidden, like [Bruce Wayne/Clark Kent/Billy Batson].

Also, I don't think Richard, Jason or Tim were adopted anymore. They were moved to one of the Wayne orphanage things.

You can make realistic, adult, versions of Batman, Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, etc, because ther are based in adult concepts, but it's impossible to make a dark version of Robin, because he isn't dark. It's like make a dark-adult version of Barney the dinosaur, you can try but the result will be ridiculous.

All superheroes are inherently ridiculous and immature, deluding yourself into believing differently is just as immature. Batman is not a "dark" character, he's the childish wish you wanted as a child, and as such is ridiculous as Peter Pan, you can slap him in armour and have him fight terrorists but it's still a child's drawing, only in a metafictional sense is he dark in that he is forever doomed to see his parents die and spend eternity battling criminals.

Of course, I'm always talking of Robin as the figure who actively helps Batman in his crusade, not a kind of young Alfred. If you are imagining Robin in action for me is the same that the original Robin, even if he's wearing a darker costume.

Batman '66 fought Joker, The Dark Knight fought Joker.

Same film really, I agree.

For me, and this is personal opinion, the one really interesting is Jason Todd, because he's the one who really is more mature than Bruce and shows him his own madness and the futility of his actions. As far as I know, the others sidekicks just serve to reaffirm the Batman role, and that's not interesting for me.

They're all more mature than Bruce. After 22 years he's still obsessed with the murder of his parents, his psychological outlet and can't hold a stable relationship, he's emotionally ******ed, stuck in the same childish mindset he's had since he was eight, his only real relationship outside of the Robins is with Alfred, who primarily stayed with Bruce out of debt to the Wayne's.

Dick moved on from his parents death, he's sad, but he accepted it. He had the most friendships of anyone in the DCU, considered Superman's equal, ahead of Batman and has had several lasting relationships and reformed a brainwashed murderer, who just so happened to be Bruce's son, who Bruce himself couldn't reach.

Jason returned from the grave having grown marginally. He saw Batman as ineffective. He moved on from Bruce not saving him, for replacing him, for saving Joker. He had a nervous breakdown when Bruce died however, but afterward he grew even further, made amends with Bruce, adopted Bruce's code, has a group of close friends and girlfriend.
Tim was created to be well adjusted initially, further proof to Bruce he needn't be so obsessed, that there is a Bruce Wayne and maybe he should grow up. But Tim sees his parents die, for no reason, his best friends die, his adoptive father die. But he pretty much held it together, an was rewarded for doing so, he's had several relationships and several close friends.

 

[Oswald]

Answer me this, please: do you think it fits that a man insanely obsessed with protecting innocents from violence trains kids/teenagers to fight against criminals and murderers, risking their lifes and integrities (physical and mental)? And if the answer yes: how is that?

 

[shauner111]

I get the idea behind taking a kid off the street and teaching them discipline, and to fight off evil instead of leaving them a damaged mess, left to their own devices, where they could become evil themselves. That's the great part about the origin for these Robin's, Grayson especially. But for Bruce to train them at a young age then soon after he encourages them to put on a suit and fight crime as his sidekick? That's stupid. It doesn't make any sense. It goes against what Batman is all about.

That's why i like the suggestion of Bruce taking in Dick (maybe not at age 10, but 14-16 works). He sets him up with a job at Wayne Enterprises, something small on the side. To avoid suspicion. He takes him into Wayne Manor as well. Bruce mentors him. Dick doesn't go out on the field. He's like an oracle-type. Soon enough, Dick defies Bruce and wants to become his own hero. Either to do it on his own or to aid Batman on the streets. Batman disagrees. He encourages him to become a cop who can move up in the ranks in order to replace Gordon at some point.

Dick doesn't want to. He gives Bruce an ultimatum. He walks or Bruce can train him. At this point he can be like 17. Bruce feels forced to do it. Grayson becomes Nightwing (hey, you can still call him Robin instead). Or instead of calling him oracle back when he started doing that, his nickname was Robin, only he wasn't suited up or fighting.

As Nightwing, he aids Batman when he needs help and he takes care of business by himself when Bruce is busy with meetings, etc. Batman is hitting 40 or something like that around this time, so it gives him a break. And Grayson is old enough. It wouldn't be wrong, and Bruce doesn't have to worry about some little kid on his own. Scrap that mess.