why do some people think Robin is the worst thing to ever happen to batman?

[thwhtGuardian]

Well, I don't think that kid sidekicks have been a commonly accepted trope of the comics medium for a long time.
We're talking about film though. They have never been this in the film medium.

It's a trope that a large portion of the general viewing public grew up with, and it doesn't really matter if it's never really crossed over into films.

Batman having a side kick is just a part of the parcel for most people, that's just a flat fact, it's the other side of the coin that is in the minority when it comes to the question of Robin.

[Oni Squirrel]

I think a good way to justify Robin would be to focus on the idea that Batman taking him in is actually saving him. Have Robin actually go after the guys who killed his parents prior to Bruce taking him in. I think the character can work in a film. He is a little bit of a tricky balance, but I think done well people will have little problem accepting him.

[AdamYJ]

I think the problem people perceive with a sidekick character is it makes Bats look irresponsible constantly putting a kid in danger. I mean if he truly needs a partner to help him out shouldn't he hire a special forces type. To say nothing of dressing him in day-glo colours while he slinks in shadows all black capey and stuff. "hey shoot at the canon fodder kid while I sneak up behind you"

You see, my view of Robin isn't so much that he's being put in danger by Batman as much as it's a matter of Robin putting himself in danger and Batman choosing to supervise. Dick Grayson should not be portrayed as your average kid. He should be smarter, stronger, faster and have an amazing knack for turning the tables on situations where he's the underdog. Not inhumanly so, but still noticeably so. He's a kid who lived with danger everyday by being a circus kid. It was a world where he could have plumetted to the ground and died any time he was working the trapeze or the high wire. A world where there's always the chance that a wild animal could break free of its cage and start trouble. Dick should be the kind of kid that, if he really wanted to fight crime, Batman could not really stop him. He'd find a way anyways. In general, he should be much less some innocent kid that Batman takes in and more of a junior partner.

I also think Robin, or at least Dick Grayson, is important to Batman's character arc as its set up in the movies. We start with Bruce losing a father and end with him essentially becoming a father.

Though, I should admit that I'm actually kind of biased. You see, I really like Robin. I only tolerate Batman. You don't suppose someone would ever consider making a Robin solo movie, would you?

[minasithil]

Yeah, I want to echo some of this.

In a lot of the versions of Robin's origin-- Robin annual 4, Dark Victory, even Robin's Reckoning from B:TAS, one of the big reasons that Batman revealed his identity and took him on as Robin was because, well, Dick was going to try to get justice/revenge for his parents death by himself anyways which would probably lead to getting himself killed or worse. And unlike Bruce at that age, Dick was a bit more capable/street-wise and had skills to back up his attempts due to his upbringing. Moreover, Dick was not in a good place right after his parents died and was developing obsessive behavior along the lines of what happened to Bruce. Bruce saw this and wanted to stop it and by helping him catch Zucco and giving him a way to use his talents (while also keeping an eye on him to keep him safe) Dick was able to grow and move past his trauma in a way that Bruce hasn't entirely. (Depends on the version and your interpretation though) Heck, this idea of "so Dick wouldn't grow up to be another Batman" was even brought up recently in an episode of the Young Justice cartoon when called out on why he took on a 9 year-old Robin as a partner.

I can understand not wanting to use Robin to a point, but Dick Grayson himself is such an important character to Bruce's development, forcing him to be more responsible and make "the mission" less of a death wish that it makes me sad that there's such a stigma against using him in some things. I mean it requires good writing and acting and some lampshading of some of the issues a sidekick or a billionaire adopting a young boy invokes, but there's a really good story there and a really interesting relationship.

I enjoy early Batman and solo Batman stories, but the idea of a Batman without a Robin at all is just kinda depressing to me and I don't really understand the appeal. I think Robin helps to humanize Batman in a lot of ways, especially in Dick's case (and now Damian especially I suppose) seeing him more as a father/big-brother figure, and honestly a lot of my love of Bruce's character came after getting to see his interactions with the Bat-family and seeing the side of him that isn't just out there to beat people up. I've run into a few people that are of the opinion that Batman should be a badass loner who has no emotions because it isn't manly but whatever, having human connections and family and loving people doesn't make you any less badass.

[MajorHoy]

. . . I enjoy early Batman and solo Batman stories, but the idea of a Batman without a Robin at all is just kinda depressing to me and I don't really understand the appeal. I think Robin helps to humanize Batman in a lot of ways, especially in Dick's case (and now Damian especially I suppose) seeing him more as a father/big-brother figure, and honestly a lot of my love of Bruce's character came after getting to see his interactions with the Bat-family and seeing the side of him that isn't just out there to beat people up. I've run into a few people that are of the opinion that Batman should be a badass loner who has no emotions because it isn't manly but whatever, having human connections and family and loving people doesn't make you any less badass.

That's the thing: Robin can add another layer to Batman. In the comic books, it's good (at least from my stand point) to have both solo Batman stories and stories where he works with Dick, Tim, Damian and/or others in the extended Bat-family.

But in the live-action movies, it's a different feel. Those usually are just taking bits and pieces from the comic book . . . I think it would be hard to do a movie with Batman and Robin and make it enjoyable to a mass audience that includes non-comic book readers.

[thwhtGuardian]

I really don't think it would be that hard at all.

[rob fleming]

That made me think back when they got rid of the yellow oval around the bat on his chest, some complained (comic fans complain?!) about it with one stating it made criminals focus on it instead of what his hands and feet were doing. And I thought, its over his chest... shoot there and you put one through his heart. Ah, the good ole days.

There was even some retarded explanation that he put it there intentionally as a target for crooks to aim at and underneath the yellow was armoured. Because if you have an armoured target stuck on your chest that's the only thing the badguys will hit and bullets will harmlessly bounce off. Cos it's armoured!

[sidekick77]

I think Robin in the films should just be treated as a protege and eventually heir. Not a kid sidekick who tags along with him on the street. That's why I always preferred Tim Drake's Robin and now recently the Young Justice Robin to how Robin has usually been, in any medium.

I couldn't care less about "heirs" seeing how Legacy characters have come and gone, with no intention of staying dead. However, if that's your tastes, I can see why Tim is your preferred Robin.

Timothy Drake is a blatant straw man of Bruce's character. After Jason's death, while fans still wanted a Robin, editorial wanted a sidekick so complimentary and utilitarian to Batman, that he could practically fit in his belt pocket next to the shark repellent.

It was an interesting change of pace for a modern Robin, but also a bit of a cheat as [later] it began to undermine the entire purpose of this particular sidekick. Robin is supposed to expand the narrative, keep the tone and direction of the book 'dynamic' by facilitating moments that take Bruce outside of his head. Tim grew too autonomous, too quick, with too few contrasts with Bruce's personality to do that or remain interesting for me... but the entire creative direction for all the Bat-books is most likely to blame for that.

I think Dixon did tremendous work in fleshing Tim out and giving him a spark of personality and world-building in his own book [same goes for the YJ series]. Still, I feel Drake's overall progression and skill-set were written to indulge a post-TDKR take on Batman by enabling a B&R concept, without the actual weight and feel of a Robin.

[Zak213]

Depends on the robin and I think it would work better as a tv show.

I think tim would work as he has the long comic run and he isnt a ward of bruce. Plus Dick or jason probably work better as their older selves if you want to pitch them a show.

[Kerukun878]

Because of old concepts and suggestions from way back in the 40's and 50's, when they meant nothing.

Honestly the concept of Robin as a CHILD, like Damian Wayne or when they first started, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, is extremely risque and out there. I honestly don't think the concept of Robin, as a whole, is silly at all. I just think that it'd make more sense if they started out around the same age that Stephanie Brown or Jason Todd started out, which was in their early-mid teenage years.

[Spiderboy12]

Because of old concepts and suggestions from way back in the 40's and 50's, when they meant nothing.

Honestly the concept of Robin as a CHILD, like Damian Wayne or when they first started, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake, is extremely risque and out there. I honestly don't think the concept of Robin, as a whole, is silly at all. I just think that it'd make more sense if they started out around the same age that Stephanie Brown or Jason Todd started out, which was in their early-mid teenage years.

Dick's starting age varies depending on the version of his origin, though he's usually between about 9 (as in Young Justice) and 13. Tim was 13 when he was first introduced (in A Lonely Place of Dying, not the toddler in Batman: Year 3), but he might have passed his 14th birthday by the time he actually became Robin. Both characters' starting ages are greater post-Flashpoint.

No quibbles on Stephanie's age, but where did you get the impression that Jason was any older than Dick or (especially) Tim when he started? In both versions of his origin, Jason is about 12 when's he's adopted by Bruce, and he's certainly not much older when he starts out as Robin. Pre-Crisis, Jason (the strawberry-blonde aerialist version) was still 12; post-Crisis, Jason (the black-haired street punk version) might have passed his 13th birthday by the time of his debut as Batman's partner. Either way, he was Tim's age or younger when he began his career as Robin. (Again, Jason's starting age is also older post-FP.)

[mex4173]

That's the thing: Robin can add another layer to Batman. In the comic books, it's good (at least from my stand point) to have both solo Batman stories and stories where he works with Dick, Tim, Damian and/or others in the extended Bat-family.

But in the live-action movies, it's a different feel. Those usually are just taking bits and pieces from the comic book . . . I think it would be hard to do a movie with Batman and Robin and make it enjoyable to a mass audience that includes non-comic book readers.

That's a good point. If there were Batman movies coming out every couple of weeks, Robin would appear sooner than later.

[Mr. Holmes]

Timothy Drake is a blatant straw man of Bruce's character. After Jason's death, while fans still wanted a Robin, editorial wanted a sidekick so complimentary and utilitarian to Batman, that he could practically fit in his belt pocket next to the shark repellent.

This is only what he became in Red Robin. The appeal of Tim Drake to me was just the fact that he was kind of an everyman, relatively normal kid who learned the ropes to be a Gotham hero. So basically the Spider-Man archetype. And the appeal of Tim Drake isn't the legacy. The point was trying to make is that if you want to use close to realistic context, Robin makes sense as someone who could potentially carry on Batman's legacy. This isn't even something exclusive to Tim, as Dick actually did that.

[carabas]

Here's a much more realistical, less judgemental reaso not to have a Robin in the films: because whatever kid you cast will be too old to play the character in the sequel.

[KurtW95]

It's not Robin's fault that those movies suck. It's Joel Schumacher's.