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

[carabas]

are Man-Bat Clayface Mister Freeze Poison Ivy any more realistic than robin?

In a way they are.

A genetically manipulated freak, a guy with a power suit and a disease, and a plant/animal hybrid are all within normal bounds of suspense of disbelief for science fiction (actually, I have no idea what Clat Face is supposed to be). 10-year old martial arts masters that beat up the above? Not so much.

[Patroklos]

It's stupid is what it is. People can accept a kid wizard beating the greatest evil Wizard, dragons, etc, they can accept all kinds of bullcrap, but Robin? Noo.... Batman is serious business for serious and mature viewers.

Nolan is also to blame. He created a massive legion of elitist fans who only like what he serves them. JL? Robin? Unrealism? Oh hell naw!

NOLAN NOLAN CHRIS CHRIS NOLAN NOLAN

I really think that the "elitists" comes mainly from the other camp in this case. Preferring a darker, more serious and pseudo-realistic Batman is seen as childish and something that no "real fans" does, instead you're supposed to embrace "all eras" (conveniently excluding the era that you actually embrace, of course) of Batman and love stuff like the 60's TV Series, whacky Silver Age stories, Dick Sprang and the more playful elements of Grant Morrison's run. It certainly seems to be the case on this messageboard, anyway.

[Free-Man]

It's stupid is what it is. People can accept a kid wizard beating the greatest evil Wizard, dragons, etc, they can accept all kinds of bullcrap, but Robin? Noo.... Batman is serious business for serious and mature viewers.

The difference is that Harry Potter takes place in a world and tone that explicitly makes it possible for young children to battle evil wizards and monsters. The entire premise revolves around a school for children with magical abilities.

When discussing something like Batman, particularly the Nolan films, it becomes more more debatable as to whether or not you can have a child fighting crime without busting the suspension of disbelief, especially when Batman, a grown man with years of intense training, still does get some pretty serious injures in both of the Nolan films and from the looks of the trailers, TDKR as well.

[Dr. Hurt]

The difference is that Harry Potter takes place in a world and tone that explicitly makes it possible for young children to battle evil wizards and monsters. The entire premise revolves around a school for children with magical abilities.

When discussing something like Batman, particularly the Nolan films, it becomes more more debatable as to whether or not you can have a child fighting crime without busting the suspension of disbelief, especially when Batman, a grown man with years of intense training, still does get some pretty serious injures in both of the Nolan films and from the looks of the trailers, TDKR as well.

Definitely. Robin wouldnt fit in Nolan's more realistic world. But all these new fans have been indoctrinated to only love this take on batman and reject everything else. People think comics are silly enough as it is.

[carabas]

Definitely. Robin wouldnt fit in Nolan's more realistic world. But all these new fans have been indoctrinated to only love this take on batman and reject everything else. People think comics are silly enough as it is.

It's not exactly a take Nolan came up with, or populised for that matter.

[Fate's Faith]

I can see why people might not like Robin. I do like him though. I don't care if it realistically doesn't make sense. I don't think its a case of putting a kid in danger since Batman, of all people, knows evil doesn't care what your age is. He's training someone to take care of themselves and others. The only Robin to have died was the one who didn't listen so I think Robin will live longer than most people of any age because of the training they recieved from Batman. And I honestly think that if that couldn't be done in a film its due to a limited vision of the Batman character. The existence of Robin completely negates the inhuman view of Batman some have of the character. I've do wonder what may happen to Damien if he doesn't make a change in attitude.

[rob fleming]

I've heard rumors that after Dark Knight rises they might re-imagine Nolans batman for TV. If this were the case I could see a Robin character slowly emerging over the course of several seasons. From first being taken in by Bruce, learning his secrets and finally becoming sidekick at the end of season 3 or 4. Like a better version of All star. If handled correctly it could work.

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"

[geek1939]

As has been pointed out, most non-comic book fans have really embraced this "hyper-realist" approach to Batman that has occurred in the Nolan series (even if it still isn't particularly realistic). As such, any attempt to bring Robin into this universe would be a struggle, and he should certainly not be included in the Nolan-verse, there really isn't a place for him there. Now, this doesn't mean there isn't a place for Dick Grayson in the Nolan saga. Having Bruce take Dick under his wing would allow for a lot of character development. We'd get to see a more fatherly side to Bruce, showing how he has matured over the years. Dick also acts as a foil in a way Alfred and Gordon can't. Dick could be the optimism in the series, a role that needs to be filled after Harvey's corruption and death.

However, Robin could be introduced in the next reboot, if it embraced a different tone. Amp up the sci-fi aspects a bit, introduce more of the comic book elements, and Robin could fit in quite nicely, especially if he is 15-17 rather than 12-14.

[Mr. Holmes]

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.

[Fate's Faith]

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"

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.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

Elaborate. Tell us how you think Robin would work in a serious movie.

I'm of the school which believes that the more "realistic" you try to make BATMAN, the more ridiculous it looks! Batman has always been about as "realistic" as DICK TRACY and if you look at the Tracy films from the 40s--which were more "realistic" than the comic strip, they really fall flat--but by contrast, Warren Beatty's version holds up pretty nicely (Loved Pacino, tolerated Madonna)!

So, how would Robin "work" with the Nolan-Batman? By doing that same balancing act the two previous films practiced--introduce Robin as a 16-17 year old but without the pixy boots. O'Donnell was great as Robin--it was Schumachers' direction (aka "The Schlockmeister") that I had a problem with, back in the day!

[Choppa]

The character doesn't make a lot of sense given the tone of the character of Batman.

[thwhtGuardian]

It's stupid is what it is. People can accept a kid wizard beating the greatest evil Wizard, dragons, etc, they can accept all kinds of bullcrap, but Robin? Noo.... Batman is serious business for serious and mature viewers.

Nolan is also to blame. He created a massive legion of elitist fans who only like what he serves them. JL? Robin? Unrealism? Oh hell naw!

NOLAN NOLAN CHRIS CHRIS NOLAN NOLAN

It's been a feeling among a certain percentage of the fan base since long before the Nolan Batman movies came into being really.

In a way they are.

A genetically manipulated freak, a guy with a power suit and a disease, and a plant/animal hybrid are all within normal bounds of suspense of disbelief for science fiction (actually, I have no idea what Clat Face is supposed to be). 10-year old martial arts masters that beat up the above? Not so much.

I don't really see the difference really, especially as the idea of a kid sidekick isn't a new one. It's a commonly accepted trope of the medium and I don't think as many people would have an issue with Robin in the general movie going population as many would have you believe for that very reason.

I really think that the "elitists" comes mainly from the other camp in this case. Preferring a darker, more serious and pseudo-realistic Batman is seen as childish and something that no "real fans" does, instead you're supposed to embrace "all eras" (conveniently excluding the era that you actually embrace, of course) of Batman and love stuff like the 60's TV Series, whacky Silver Age stories, Dick Sprang and the more playful elements of Grant Morrison's run. It certainly seems to be the case on this messageboard, anyway.

I wouldn't say childish, but I will say limiting yourself to one narrow interpretation and dismissing the others as campy or stupid (as many who prefer the "more serious" Batman often do) seems like a great disservice to the medium.

[carabas]

So, how would Robin "work" with the Nolan-Batman? By doing that same balancing act the two previous films practiced--introduce Robin as a 16-17 year old but without the pixy boots. O'Donnell was great as Robin--it was Schumachers' direction (aka "The Schlockmeister") that I had a problem with, back in the day!

Sorry, but he was 25 years old at the time, and looked older. That's just not Robin.

[carabas]

I don't really see the difference really, especially as the idea of a kid sidekick isn't a new one. It's a commonly accepted trope of the medium and I don't think as many people would have an issue with Robin in the general movie going population as many would have you believe for that very reason.

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.