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

[The Animal Man]

i love how people act like robin's so unrealistic and that no kid his age should be able to the things he does...except oh wait! he was in a traveling circus performing with his family as an Acrobat so his skills aren't unrealistic it's not like batman just picked him up and he magically got all these skills and abilities

[BlueLily]

Exactly, all the arguments about child endangerment are silly because Robin (Dick Grayson) isn't an ordinary child! He worked in a circus! He's been risking his life daily and dealing with colorful characters since Day One.

[Ed Sizzers]

Exactly, all the arguments about child endangerment are silly because Robin (Dick Grayson) isn't an ordinary child! He worked in a circus! He's been risking his life daily and dealing with colorful characters since Day One.

It's really not the same. If an accident happened in a circus, that's what it would be. An accident. That's not the same as putting someone in an environment where almost everyone you encounter is specifically trying to injure/kill/eat you.

It's that difference where the whole "It's not real so it doesn't matter line" gets that little bit blurrier. It's one thing to belive a man can fly and aliens and power rings and amazons and even that a ten year old kid can be a trained assassin who could take on a bunch of heavily armed dudes and not get blipped in about three seconds flat. Cos yeah, that stuff's so fantastic that you don't need to suspend disbelief cos you already know it's not real.

But the idea that anyone would choose to put a child in active danger, even with the proviso that the child in question is impossibly skilled, that's harder to accept. Why? Because making choices and decisions and doing the right thing, that's the real aspect of any comic book hero. Their adventures and enemies and the situations they find themselves in might be impossible, but the stories are still rooted in the idea of these being 'real' people.

[sidekick77]

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.

Red Robin was problematic for me, but I strongly think there were several precursors during his tour as Robin that brought him to that type of characterization. However, I agree there was window of time when Tim was written with a very Spider-man/everyman appeal. He went through extensive training and had a family life of his own; both very enjoyable to read, but editorial kept pushing Batman into this increasingly isolated, psycho-paranoid depiction that was trending at the time, causing more events and storylines that took Tim out of the cave or away from Bruce. To facilitate this, they cranked up the competency and skillset to where you have a 14/15 year old kid pretty much operating on his own. Great.

On the upside, this makes Tim Drake's character profile super-sexy by modern [and possibly film] standards, but the downside is that he failed to do what he set off to do initially: be a grounding point for Batman, provide balance, etc. Even for as violent and obnoxious as he is often written, Damian serves this intention by forcing Bruce out of the box and being a foil for Dick when he was Batman.

I think that's why I feel that in order for ANY Robin to be successful in the Nolan films, there has to be some type of relationship or dynamic to expand the narrative, in addition to the competency and plausibility factor. Or else why bother? While long aims for legacy doesn't hurt, I don't think its critical. Whatever form the mentoring takes, I think you want it to be buildable and charismatic for audiences.

[Dr. Hurt]

I personally would love a movie with Batman and a 14 year old Robin provided that the movie is more "comicbooky" the way the Marvel ones are, as opposed to TDK. If people can turn into clay and bat monsters, why cant a kid fight crime? Did you have any problem with all those kids in Kickass? I didnt.

Besides, Robin doesnt have to be at the front lines, he can stay back or above and throw batarangs for support, appear and disappear in the battlefield (of batman vs thugs) and do sneak attacks and then disappear again, and generally be a little devil. Robin's creepy laugh and disappearing act in Young Justice are the way to go.

[sidekick77]

It's really not the same. If an accident happened in a circus, that's what it would be. An accident. That's not the same as putting someone in an environment where almost everyone you encounter is specifically trying to injure/kill/eat you.

It's that difference where the whole "It's not real so it doesn't matter line" gets that little bit blurrier. It's one thing to belive a man can fly and aliens and power rings and amazons and even that a ten year old kid can be a trained assassin who could take on a bunch of heavily armed dudes and not get blipped in about three seconds flat. Cos yeah, that stuff's so fantastic that you don't need to suspend disbelief cos you already know it's not real.

But the idea that anyone would choose to put a child in active danger, even with the proviso that the child in question is impossibly skilled, that's harder to accept. Why? Because making choices and decisions and doing the right thing, that's the real aspect of any comic book hero. Their adventures and enemies and the situations they find themselves in might be impossible, but the stories are still rooted in the idea of these being 'real' people.

What's to choose, though? In the varying depictions of Dick's origin, he was depressed and unhappy being forced out of the circus and the high-wire life he was accustomed to; he was also prepared to get vigilante justice on his own in several versions. Even when the Robin was taken away [twice], Dick just left the manor to continue doing what he was doing.

Plus, you're looking at concept that began in 1939. Treating children like little adults and exposing them to work or recreational environments that were potentially hazardous is exactly what society did back then--or at least something they weren't heavily concerned with. In the 50's, my dad dropped out of school at 13 and was running wild, bootlegging, and no one gave a crap amazingly enough.

There are ways to hone the idea of a young vigilante sidekick to meet the sensibilities of today's audiences. I think what people are saying here is that characters like Dick or Jason have a better leverage into that type of role than some average kid with none of their skills or background.

[carabas]

i love how people act like robin's so unrealistic and that no kid his age should be able to the things he does...except oh wait! he was in a traveling circus performing with his family as an Acrobat so his skills aren't unrealistic it's not like batman just picked him up and he magically got all these skills and abilities

The skills Robin has are not really those commonly found in circus acrobats. Nor do 10-year old, performing circus acrobats of that type even exist.

[kaleb2470]

They did an older Robin. He brought absolutely nothing to the Schumacher films. There needs to a reason for Robin to be in the movie. Something besides simply having him there.

Was that the character's fault or the way the character was handled? You can't really cite the schumacher films as a reason why certain Bat-characters will and won't work in a movie that isn't made by Schumacher. Do you really think Nolan's Bane will be as useless as Schumacher's?

I'm sure if there was ever another on-screen Robin, he wouldn't a motorcycle riding d-bag who snicks the Batmobile to pick up babes. And again, having him in his mid-late teens would still enable the character to be impressionable and optimistic enough to add contrast and dimensionality to Batman.

Also: not having CHRIS O'DONNEL as Robin might help

[thwhtGuardian]

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.

How so? Was Daniel Radcliff too old to be Harry Potter in the following sequels?

That's probably one of the weaker reasons I've heard thus far.

[Dr. Hurt]

The skills Robin has are not really those commonly found in circus acrobats. Nor do 10-year old, performing circus acrobats of that type even exist.

And no matter how hard you train, dressing in a bat armor and fighting armed thugs is going to get you killed within a week.

[carabas]

How so? Was Daniel Radcliff too old to be Harry Potter in the following sequels?

That's probably one of the weaker reasons I've heard thus far.

Potter films came out every year (mostly) and were chronologically set a year apart. Batman films come out every 3-4 years or so.

And yes, Radcliff definitely was too old by the end.

[thwhtGuardian]

Potter films came out every year (mostly) and were chronologically set a year apart. Batman films come out every 3-4 years or so.

And yes, Radcliff definitely was too old by the end.

Who says the Batman movies have to be set a year apart in their continuity? I don't think the current batman movie is supposed to take place directly after the events of the previous movie, so why couldn't others take a similar path?

Or on the flipside, who's going to really care all that much that the actor playing Robin looks older than a most teenagers look in real life? It's a commonly accepted practice in movies in television that the actors are actually older than characters they are portraying. As long as they look noticeably younger than the "adult" cast in the movie most movie goers are going to take it at face value that the actors are in highschool or what have you, it's only the nit picky viewers who were bothered by the way the casts grew up between movies.

[Mr. Holmes]

Or on the flipside, who's going to really care all that much that the actor playing Robin looks older than a most teenagers look in real life? It's a commonly accepted practice in movies in television that the actors are actually older than characters they are portraying. As long as they look noticeably younger than the "adult" cast in the movie most movie goers are going to take it at face value that the actors are in highschool or what have you, it's only the nit picky viewers who were bothered by the way the casts grew up between movies.

Isn't that what they tried in Batman and Robin?

[thwhtGuardian]

Isn't that what they tried in Batman and Robin?

No, not at all really. Robin was never a kid in that movie.

[Mr. Holmes]

No, not at all really. Robin was never a kid in that movie.

Exactly...