Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Batman debuted in 1939, 11 issues later in 1940 Robin debuted. This idea that Robin came long after Batman had been around is bull****. The idea Robin was added to help kids relate is also bull****, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone..

I'm really surprised to hear this from you because I can tell you're a comic book guy and I would think you, of all people, would know the history. Robin WAS created for the sole purpose of relating to kids. Having him around made Batman less menacing and thus less of an issue for parents who bought comics for their kids. How can you not know this?

 

I'd really lke to think that you're just ****ing with me here, but sadly I think that you are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Same as liking any other form of entertainment. There's always more crap than gold.

Plus "comics" encompasses EVERY genre you can imagine. I don't read any of the superhero crap because that genre is so played out. So I could just say "fuck comics" because of that.   Or I could read

What Krawlie and ShadowDog said.   Personally, I just can't understand the allure of music, because you have to sift through miles of shit to find a good band.

Everything sucked about those movies, not just Robin. I ask again, what Batman are you guys watching that's kiddie fare? the Schumacher films? Adam West series? Golden age comics? Cause those are all honey in multiple ways.

I don't deny that the kiddie fare versions of Batman all include Robin, but that doesn't mean all inclusion of Robin is kiddie fare.

I challenge anyone to make the Batman and Robin thing work to a mass audience. You're a good guy to ask, because I know screenwriting is you're thing.

 

How do you include Robin without stealing Batman's mojo?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone..

This may be true to some extent, but all the histories of the character say Robin was created specifically to give kids somebody they could identify with/imagine they were fighting crime with Batman, and in an effort to get uptight parents/activists to ease up a bit on the character.

 

I don't like any of Robin's incarnations and likely never will, but I don't hate him and can view him as a net positive in certain situations when written well -- specifically when used as parallel/contrast study and in growing other characters I actually care about. In this regard, he's kind of like Punisher to me -- find him trite and annoying and have never understood his appeal, but am actually really looking forward to seeing how he is used in season 2 of Daredevil, because of the opportunities and for growth, parallels, and cautionary tale he offers to the characters I do like.

 

There is a borderline mindless, pathological hatred some people have for Robin that seems silly. I think most people just have a hard time with the ethical and logistical issues the character presents (even if they don't recognize them consciously), when they are already working hard to suspend disbelief with Batman, Scarecrow, Bane, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not telling anyone they must like or not like Robin. I'm not devaluing the importance of also having solo Batman stories. That would be an absurd position to take.

I am pointing out that taking a position adamantly against Robin is as asinine as saying Watson isn't important to Sherlock* both as a character and a device.

*Samwise to Frodo

*Ron and Hermoine to Harry

Robin is a key piece of what makes Batman the character he is. Exclusion of Robin in totality forces an adaptation to fabricate a person or event to fill the void left by Robin. This is why we get a noname cop helping in DKR. This is why Batman repeatedly learns it's okay to still be Bruce because a woman** set him straight in each story instead of him evolving because of his role as a father.

**Not that women in Batman are bad. LOL There are females, both love interest or otherwise, that are of pivotal importance too. I was specifically addressing the Bond Girl addition in each Batman film.

Afterthought: Kiddie fare, Batman is for kids. Batman makes kazillions of dollars just from his logo, the realism+for adults market is not the bank for Batman. Of course adults can like it too however the market for "grown up, adult, realism Batman" exists not because that is what Batman is, but because adults that can't admit they like a youth franchise demand to be catered to, it is people that haven't let go of a toy and haven't grown the **** up. That is the fans that demand their personal sensibilities get catered to over what the property is. That's the delicious irony here. Just tremendous. Stomp your feet some more, grim-wankers, your position is right if we ignore all facts and literary premises.

Dude I've always known you were weird but at this point you need to put on your Bat/Robin Jammie's and go to bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Batman debuted in 1939, 11 issues later in 1940 Robin debuted. This idea that Robin came long after Batman had been around is bull****. The idea Robin was added to help kids relate is also bull****, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone..

I'm really surprised to hear this from you because I can tell you're a comic book guy and I would think you, of all people, would know the history. Robin WAS created for the sole purpose of relating to kids. Having him around made Batman less menacing and thus less of an issue for parents who bought comics for their kids. How can you not know this?

 

I'd really lke to think that you're just ****ing with me here, but sadly I think that you are not.

There is an only missing in what I wrote. I didn't even see it wasn't tapped out (I surf, post, edit etc from my Samsung G2 lol).

 

"The idea Robin was only added to help kids relate is also bull****, kids wanted to be Batman. Robin was added for depth and to allow Batman to talk to someone."

 

Side Note: I didn't even comprehend the only wasn't there until seeing Pong make his point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not telling anyone they must like or not like Robin. I'm not devaluing the importance of also having solo Batman stories. That would be an absurd position to take.

I am pointing out that taking a position adamantly against Robin is as asinine as saying Watson isn't important to Sherlock* both as a character and a device.

*Samwise to Frodo

*Ron and Hermoine to Harry

Robin is a key piece of what makes Batman the character he is. Exclusion of Robin in totality forces an adaptation to fabricate a person or event to fill the void left by Robin. This is why we get a noname cop helping in DKR. This is why Batman repeatedly learns it's okay to still be Bruce because a woman** set him straight in each story instead of him evolving because of his role as a father.

**Not that women in Batman are bad. LOL There are females, both love interest or otherwise, that are of pivotal importance too. I was specifically addressing the Bond Girl addition in each Batman film.

Afterthought: Kiddie fare, Batman is for kids. Batman makes kazillions of dollars just from his logo, the realism+for adults market is not the bank for Batman. Of course adults can like it too however the market for "grown up, adult, realism Batman" exists not because that is what Batman is, but because adults that can't admit they like a youth franchise demand to be catered to, it is people that haven't let go of a toy and haven't grown the **** up. That is the fans that demand their personal sensibilities get catered to over what the property is. That's the delicious irony here. Just tremendous. Stomp your feet some more, grim-wankers, your position is right if we ignore all facts and literary premises.

Dude I've always known you were weird but at this point you need to put on your Bat/Robin Jammie's and go to bed.

The spirit of the Afterthought was written in direct proportion to your "grow the fuck up" sentiment. I threw that back at you with irony, social, literary and monetary points.

 

Edit in: I do have Batman PJs. My kids bought them as a Xmas stocking gift for me, they also bought me Superman PJs and a Spider-Man mug. I know you meant that as a slam, but see I don't have any issue acknowledging I like certain kid franchises and I don't need them to change to only suit my adult sensibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everything sucked about those movies, not just Robin. I ask again, what Batman are you guys watching that's kiddie fare? the Schumacher films? Adam West series? Golden age comics? Cause those are all honey in multiple ways.

I don't deny that the kiddie fare versions of Batman all include Robin, but that doesn't mean all inclusion of Robin is kiddie fare.

I challenge anyone to make the Batman and Robin thing work to a mass audience. You're a good guy to ask, because I know screenwriting is you're thing.

 

How do you include Robin without stealing Batman's mojo?

 

There's a few ways to do it-- but the most mojo-not-stealing way is to tell a story that includes these protégés but not change Batman's character. If Batman and Robin are bantering and saying "Old chum" they are doing something wrong. What the best writers do, is that they play up the fact that Batman himself knows that he should have a kid sidekick.

 

Batman isn't out to raise kids or have partners, he's out to train people who can be as driven as him-- he recruits young, he trains them all their lives, he puts then in danger for the sole purpose of building an army. The "Bat-family" isn't a partnership of superheroes, it's Batman drafting for a war on crime.

 

But deep down, Batman is human, and he doesn't want any of them being hurt-- so he's a dick. He pushes them away, he's not above tricking them-- he's trained them to be like him, but ultimately he is conflicted about their safety, and one by one, they tend to become alienated from Batman and strike out on their own.

 

NONE OF THIS IS "KIDDIE FARE."

 

Some specific examples:

 

Like I said, the 90s TAS, while certainly made for kids, had two different Robin's that worked well. They actually knew some stories were better when Batman was solo and Robin wasn't always there.

 

Three more modern examples-- The Arkham Knight video game that just came out is very dark and meant for adults, and features the entire Batman family, yet it is most certainly NOT for kids and while the game itself has issues, the story was great.

 

Grant Morrison's various Batman runs in the last few years, both his time on Batman, as well as Batman & Robin, included Robin and were often times rated M and super violent. A lot of hardcore comic fans consider his runs among the best.

 

From the 80s there's a few famous story arcs with Robin that are dark as hell-- The Cult comes to mind, as does Death in the Family-- you know, where Joke murders Robin. Dark Knight returns has a girl-child Robin and no one has ever considered it for kids.

 

I am frustrated that anyone thinks the inclusion of Robin makes the story for kids and takes the teeth of Bats, when done, the exact opposite is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

See, even TDR notwithstanding, it's just hard for me to buy into the concept of vigilante with a minor as a sidekick. I know DC had produced various incarnations of Robin (probably most of the incarnations actually), that try real hard to shake the stigma of Robin being a Mary Sue character for kids. For me, even the name (sorry THT, not directed at you) just feels wrong. Robin is a real-world first name, not the name of a superhero, especially for one who is the side kick of a vigilante who dresses like a bat. It just doesn't go together. Name aside, the only way Robin works for me is when he is an adult (IE Grayson as Nightwing, or Drake as Red Robin). When it comes to the Timmverse, they did it pretty well: Robin (DG) was introduced, spent a season or two as Robin at age 16 or so, became an adult, and then Nightwing. That is tolerable because there is progression and growth of the character there. Grayson is established as Robin, but doesn't spend 30 years as Robin. But when it comes to a tween or early teen age side kick paired up with Batman, it just does not work for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had to include Robin, Driver, that would be the way to do it. I still find Batman more interesting alone. I think Robin works in the comics because in that forum you need as many characters as possible to keep things interesting, but when it comes to movies his inclusion is just unnecessary fluff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The truth of the matter is that Robin was created only as a was a way to appeal to the kids. He was essentially the Wonder Twins of his time. The writers have admitted this. He was a goofy gimmick to make kids give a **** about Batman, or, more importantly, to make mom's feel better about buying Batmags for the kiddies.

That's all he was and he's better off dead. All 25 of them.

Holding on to Robin is like holding on to a toy. As an adult. Grow the **** up.

I've already provided examples of the character's evolution, which was set into motion (proabably) before you were born, and how Batman was not exclusively that worn out OMGIAMTHENIGHTKILLERBATSORTOFVAMPIRELIFEISSEENTHROUGHTHELIDOFACOFFINSCREWSUPERMANOPTIMISM bullsh*t the worst "Bat-fans" have harped on since the Miller influence.

 

The frankly idiotic stereotype of Robin (from readers of the past 20 or so years) takes its oriigins from crap like the two decades of Super Friends cartoons (again, when did that have anything to do with the comics?), more than any other source. Further, I've found too many who blast the 1966 series hardly screened a minute of it, since their memories are built on long-shattered, exaggerated notions of what the series was (or was not), shared by a few industry wrtiters and artists (I will leave nameless) who promoted that hate / misrepresentation.

 

One way or the other, Robin is always around, and will be, no matter how much some hate the character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Batman '66 was intended as satire, but not many got that at first. Then it's popularity and continuing political decency issues pushed comic editors into adopting the silly for several years (political issues were forcing changes prior to as well). These things then cheesed off fans and creatives, which is a reason for the backlash on Batman '66. In hindsight some people have come around, realizing hating '66 is unfair considering the avalanche of things that affected the comic book landscape at the time.

 

It's also a fair mirroring of the preception around Robin joining the franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For years I wondered if Batman was sterile. Maybe the tights, the battle armour or the serious beatings he'd taken had prevented him from spawning.

 

Always wondered why Robin had to be invented to give Bruce Wayne a chance at fatherhood. Why not just have a kid of your own you creepy old man?

 

I guess the advent of Damian has changed things now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as being exposed to the 66 series ...

 

In the late 70s/early 80s they used to run the series on TV on Saturdays along with the George Reeves Superman and Abbott and Costello movies. I used to watch all that every Sat. I'm sure I wasn't the only one so I imagine a lot of people have seen all or most of the 66 Batman series first hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Batman '66 was intended as satire, but not many got that at first. Then it's popularity and continuing political decency issues pushed comic editors into adopting the silly for several years (political issues were forcing changes prior to as well). These things then cheesed off fans and creatives, which is a reason for the backlash on Batman '66. In hindsight some people have come around, realizing hating '66 is unfair considering the avalanche of things that affected the comic book landscape at the time.

 

It's also a fair mirroring of the preception around Robin joining the franchise.

William Dozier's original pitch and early interviews said the series was action and serial-like comic action/danger for the younger viewers, slight satire and famous guest stars for the older crowd. If one watches the series in broadcast order, they will see the early episodes having a fairly straight delivery, with more night time scenes, and less O'Hara and the Joker acting like they suffered one beating too many. Granted, the toungue-in-cheek / celebrity angle was there, but the series was not out-of-the-gates anything like the misrepresentation coughed up by some.

 

Regarding the influence on the comics: it was short-lived; writers like Denny O'Neil like to think he had to steer the Batman comic away from the dreaded TV influence, but that was already happening in Detective Comics and other titles as early as 1967, while the TV series was still in production. In '68, Frank Robbins was just one of the writers sending Batman in the direction of genuine mystery / detective stories, along with the required appearances from the rogues' gallery. If memory serves, the longest lasting TV influence was a comic Batmobile based on the Barris design, but the "worst" of the TV material was not hard-grafted on the comics to the point where one could say it was driving DC material.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damian was a test tube baby so technically Bruce having issues is still on the table. ;-)

I'm not sure about current continuity but I thought Damien was conceived in the Son of the Demon graphic novel from the 80s.

 

Some of the best Batman stories were graphic novels, why don't they do that anymore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he is a test tube baby in the current continuity who also underwent advanced aging in order to have him be 10 in the unnecessarily compacted 5 year time span from when Batman and Superman became active.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Some of the best Batman stories were graphic novels, why don't they do that anymore?

 

I have long believed that. The "regular" Batman comics were always on the boring side for me. You had good story lines that would be later compiled into GN format (Knightfall comes to mind), but I think where Batman shines is in one-off GN stories, or alternate continuity tales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he is a test tube baby in the current continuity who also underwent advanced aging in order to have him be 10 in the unnecessarily compacted 5 year time span from when Batman and Superman became active.

That would make sense-- thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some of the best Batman stories were graphic novels, why don't they do that anymore?

 

I have long believed that. The "regular" Batman comics were always on the boring side for me. You had good story lines that would be later compiled into GN format (Knightfall comes to mind), but I think where Batman shines is in one-off GN stories, or alternate continuity tales.

 

Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, Son of the Demon, Cult-- all classic OGNs that were still considered in-continuity. It's like the monthlies were saved for the longer form stories and filler, while the OGNs were the landmark moments.

 

Marvel used to do the same thing with their Annual issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with comics is that you have to sift through a mile of shit before you get to anything remotely entertaining.

 

Seriously what is the allure once you become an adult?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus "comics" encompasses EVERY genre you can imagine. I don't read any of the superhero crap because that genre is so played out. So I could just say "fuck comics" because of that.

 

Or I could read wonderfully fresh and mature stories like Locke & Key, The Unwritten, Alex & Ada, East vs West, Saga, American Vampire, Morning Glories, and Outcast. None of which are remotely childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...