El Payaso said:
As you can see in Begins, Nolan and Batman don't need the red shirt boy at all. You write that character out of the movie and not only it stays the same but it's even better. The boy was a (sort of) stupid gimmick all Hollywood blockbusters must have, so kiddies feel they're in the movie or fans can argue to death whether his name was Dick grayson or not. Robin was the same kind of stupid gimmick in comics and cartoons and for the same reasons and all the same, you can write it out and everything goes better.
Really? These are the motivations of all Batman producers of the past? You know this from... production notes? The point was that if you "write out Robin" you have to recreate other characters to do his job for him, including to bring comic relief (Fox, Alfred), to run minor Bat errands when he can't be in two places at once (Gordon) and to fish his fat out of the fire when he gets sucker punched (Alfred), provide an emotional anchor to his family (Alfred).
This is what Robin does, this is what his character has always done and these things can't be written out, whether you have a red shirt kid or not. Whether you want to appease fanboys or children or not. These are things that Robin has always done and they, in every incarnation of Batman i've seen, must be done. If you choose not to use Robin for whatever reason, then you have to rewrite other characters "out of character" to do them.
As you say, several interesting characters are doing things that a lame character like Robin did before. Good move by Nolan; the point remains the same: Batman doesn't need Robin and in worst of cases, he doesn't need him anymore.
Batman doesn't need anybody unless he's written to need them. As far as meta-textually, Batman needs villains and Batman typically needs alllies, neer moreso than in Begins. Robin qualifies as an ally.
We can call anyone lame out of hand. Catwoman's lame. Scarecrow is lame. Penguin is EXTRA-lame. Heck, I'm lame! Doesn't mean they're not good characters when done right, which we've seen. Of course they're lame when not done right... Batman is lame when not done right. Being lame is lame! Ha! Lame.
Now, Nolan did all this oput of Robinphobia? How can we be sure if he insisted in adding the red shirt boy?
Well, the two times I've heard him talk about Robin, he seemed pretty uninformed on Robin's age and role in the Bat-family. And Bale, who gets much of his Batman from Nolan expresses a similar "Oh, no! Not Robin!" As if Burt Ward will come to your house, tie up your family and demand you add bright neon colors to your Batman production. It's just silly, people's reactions to Robin. He's a character, and from what I've read, a compellig one. The pretend Robin has power in and of himself, that he can't be redefined is just plain rediculous.
And now we need yet another character to make an already useless character to be possible and plausible.
Useless character? There are
unused characters, there are characters that don't fit with your plan, there are untalented writers, but there are no useless characters. That's just an amazing oversight. I'm shocked.
Too many troubles. It makes looks more and more distant the Robin real "necessity."
Too many troubles to add a supporting character to the cast? To have an overarching storyline to a franchise??? Wow...
While I'm sure there are superior story ideas to mine, or, more likely, they need to be developed and sharpened, there's no basis to call the character useless.
Again, I understand the fear of Robin, especially for people who don't read comics, but it's simply not logical.
