Superman and Batman: The End of Humor

[Relic]

In the more realistic style of the Nolan trilogy, yeah. But in Batman's more out-there almost surreal versions, which is totally doable in live-action, a Robin can work just fine. Kick-Ass was more tongue in cheek, but it certainly shows a kid kicking ass is doable.

And Jena Malone is hardly a kid.

Well, i haven't seen a good live action Robin yet. So i shall remain incredibly skeptical =)

Can you tell me why you think Bruce's need for a family has to be portrayed with crime fighting children?

[mormont]

Personally, I don't need a kid in a costume in my batman universe. By man has Alfred and Gordon to interact with.

Sure. But Alfred is an employee and an older man: Gordon is a cop and also usually older than Batman. Neither of them, by definition, have the same kind of interactions with Batman that the various Robins have. They can be allies, they can be avuncular figures, they can sometimes disapprove of Batman's methods, they can do lots of things - but they can't do the things a Robin can do.

Robin humanises Batman by making him responsible for someone. Robin is (usually) the kid Batman is trying to give a better life than he, Batman, has. Robin is the thing that makes Batman's war on crime about more than personal revenge. Robin can do lots of things, fill lots of storytelling needs, that Gordon and Alfred can never do.

Whether the concept can be made to work in live-action is a different story. I think it can. But we'll see.

[CyanidePie]

Well, i haven't seen a good live action Robin yet. So i shall remain incredibly skeptical =)

Can you tell me why you think Bruce's need for a family has to be portrayed with crime fighting children?

Because they represent his own lost childhood. They look at Bruce and see the man they want to become, and Bruce looks at them and sees the kid he never got to be. They keep him grounded by constantly reminding him of why he's doing this- because he was a kid who saw his parents murdered.

How easy would it be for him to lose control? To lose purpose and meaning with what he's doing? He's already having to deal with the fact that he's a sociopath and a maniac, but by bringing these children into the fold, he charges himself with their protection, and it keeps him from becoming a monster.

Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake and eventually his own son Damian have done more to shape Bruce Wayne as a character than any other event in Bruce's life, including the death of his parents.

[Relic]

Because they represent his own lost childhood. They look at Bruce and see the man they want to become, and Bruce looks at them and sees the kid he never got to be.

I mean that would be true if they were ANYthing OTHER than extraordinary crime fighting superheros going toe to toe with Gotham's nastiest villains.

[CyanidePie]

Why?

[Lord Hanna]

I mean that would be true if they were ANYthing OTHER than extraordinary crime fighting superheros going toe to toe with Gotham's nastiest villains.

Except the whole "Robin actually goes to school, has friends and has a life outside of crime fighting" thing, which batman does not have.

So yes, it is true, sorry to disappoint. Also good to ignore the rest of what CyanidePie had to say....just pick 1 sentence out of what he said, i guess.

[Relic]

So yes, it is true, sorry to disappoint. Also good to ignore the rest of what CyanidePie had to say....just pick 1 sentence out of what he said, i guess.

Ugh, for one it's the only part of his post that directly addresses my question, so there's that. Two I'm posting on a phone and its hard to go back and reread stuff in mid post. That OK with you?

Again, why do the kids Bruce surrounds himself have to be super heros? If he wanted to relive his lost childhood than Nolan's take on it makes much more sense, with the a school for orphans. Why would Bruce bring the kids he supposedly wants to protect into his den of madness? Never made any sense to me. Also never understood how the kids kicked so much ass, but whatever. Comics.

Face it guys, Robin and Batgirl and Bat Dog and all such other silliness were a way to make Batman more marketable to children in the 40s, 500, and 60s, a whimsical era which told a far different Batman story than we have seen in recent years. That said some writers have made decent use of his sidekicks. I, personally, never enjoyed any of the Robins, and preferred Batman as lone wolf. I'll be absolutely shocked if this movie turns out to be anything but total Shit. YMMV.

[Relic]

Why?

Why?

Because if he wanted wanted to see them live the childhood he "lost" he wouldn't have them jumping off of buildings wearing capes fighting crime. That's what he does now, as an adult, so folloowing your logic he'd want the opposite for them, no? Your describing a man who is doing g the opposite of what you say he sees in them, by enabling the crime fighting he's actually stealing their childhood.

[mormont]

Face it guys, Robin and Batgirl and Bat Dog and all such other silliness were a way to make Batman more marketable to children in the 40s, 500, and 60s, a whimsical era which told a far different Batman story than we have seen in recent years.

That still leaves 50 years of stories in which writers have used Robin to much different ends, though. Including stories that cover the ground CynanidePie and others have mentioned.

As to the point about them being superheroes: it's important to remember that with the exception of the original, by and large the Robins have been kids who are, or would have been, going into danger whatever Batman did (or if he did nothing). Carrie and Jason Todd were already fighting crime: Tim Drake had already figured out Batman's identity and become part of that world: Stephanie Brown and Damian were the kids of super-criminals.

Batman's role with them has largely been to try to guide them and mentor them for their own protection - thus, as stated earlier, trying to save them from his own path.

And, in-story justifications are only half the point. The point is, Robin allows writers to reflect Batman through a different lens, and even to allow him some redemption. Dick Grayson, for example, suffers the same fate as Bruce - orphaned at a young age by criminals - but, partly through Batman's help, he becomes one of the more well-balanced superheroes around. (The brighter persona, rather than the grimdark Batman stuff all the time, might have helped. ;))

Anyway. If you like solo Bats, fair enough. But it's not the only way to do the character. The presence of Robin can work too.

[DaveSumm]

Opinions on Robin aside, I think we can all agree that this movie desperately, desperately didn't need any more characters. How on Earth you make a good Supes/Batman film when you have to set up the dual identity, Lex Luthor, Batman, Robin, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and basically the whole fucking Justice League is beyond me.

[Rhom]

Opinions on Robin aside, I think we can all agree that this movie desperately, desperately didn't need any more characters. How on Earth you make a good Supes/Batman film when you have to set up the dual identity, Lex Luthor, Batman, Robin, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and basically the whole fucking Justice League is beyond me.

Agreed. That's my biggest concern.

[CyanidePie]

Except the whole "Robin actually goes to school, has friends and has a life outside of crime fighting" thing, which batman does not have.

So yes, it is true, sorry to disappoint. Also good to ignore the rest of what CyanidePie had to say....just pick 1 sentence out of what he said, i guess.

Lol that's the second time that's happened to me in te last few days. I don't get why people do that.

[CyanidePie]

Anyways, I totally don't begrudge you for not liking Robin. I hated Robin for a long time until I listened to Grant Morrison talk about Batman's relationship with Robin, the Grayson variety in particular.

I still think to this day that some of the best Batman stories ever told was when Dick Grayson had taken up the Batman mantle, with Damian Wayne as Robin. They flipped the script completely by having a light-hearted, Peter Parker-esque Batman, and the brooding, dark, angry Robin and it was awesome.

[Jaxom 1974]

I felt the same way about Snyder. I was actually a little exited when I heard he was doing MoS because I really liked Watchman.

I will not be seeing any other movie he makes in the DC universe for any reason. I do not care if the rest of the world stands up and says that one of his films is the best ever made. He gets no more of my money as long as he lives for the crap he pulled in that rotten turd of a movie he made that he claims was about Superman.

I'm still unclear on how you really feel about this topic.

[The BlackBear]

My main worry about the DC universe is that it looks so unrelentingly grim all the time. I didn't get any sense of the hope that is integral to Superman in Man of Steel.

[Fiddler]

Opinions on Robin aside, I think we can all agree that this movie desperately, desperately didn't need any more characters. How on Earth you make a good Supes/Batman film when you have to set up the dual identity, Lex Luthor, Batman, Robin, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and basically the whole fucking Justice League is beyond me.

My hope is that all of the justice league characters aren't actually having a huge part in the movie. I hope it is mainly about Batman V Superman with a coming together at the end with the other League members relegated to almost a cameo role.

Otherwise, I don't understand why they didn't just call it a Justice league movie.

[Rhom]

My hope is that all of the justice league characters aren't actually having a huge part in the movie. I hope it is mainly about Batman V Superman with a coming together at the end with the other League members relegated to almost a cameo role.

Otherwise, I don't understand why they didn't just call it a Justice league movie.

See, that's what I can't wrap my mind around... I get the concept of Luthor and Wayne coming together to curb the threat of the extraterrestrial who was at least tangentially responsible for destroying much of a major city and most of a small town in Kansas. I can see how that works. I think I could even see Carrie Kelly fitting in with that (maybe)... but what in blue blazes brings out Aquaman and Wonder Woman for anything greater than a cameo????

[Slurktan]

See, that's what I can't wrap my mind around... I get the concept of Luthor and Wayne coming together to curb the threat of the extraterrestrial who was at least tangentially responsible for destroying much of a major city and most of a small town in Kansas. I can see how that works. I think I could even see Carrie Kelly fitting in with that (maybe)... but what in blue blazes brings out Aquaman and Wonder Woman for anything greater than a cameo????

Because the existence of Superman kind of requires Aquaman and Wonder Woman to reveal themselves. Otherwise he will find them eventually and potentially get into fights and why would they want that? (By they I mean the characters, not DC). Particularly if Wonder Woman is made into (or is the descendant of) the Kryptonian that wasn't in the ship in MoS.

[Relic]

Mormont and CP, I can't disagree with anything you've said, as my dislike of Robin boils down to personal preference. I see how the Robin character plays off of the Batman character a day vice versa. I also haven't read a Batman comic since Hush, so I don't know a damned thing about Damian. I just don't think Bruce Wayne needs redemption. I prefer him as a distant loner, fighting a war he can never truly win. Anyway, I won't derail any further.

[DaveSumm]

Because the existence of Superman kind of requires Aquaman and Wonder Woman to reveal themselves. Otherwise he will find them eventually and potentially get into fights and why would they want that? (By they I mean the characters, not DC). Particularly if Wonder Woman is made into (or is the descendant of) the Kryptonian that wasn't in the ship in MoS.

Which is all true, but doesn't explain why it needs to be in this movie and not the JL movie. If it's a full introduction to the characters, then there's no way it won't interfere with the narrative (Superman fighting Batman is more than enough for a movie, and is something people have wanted to see for some time). If it's a quick cameo, then why bother? There's only so many ways to introduce heroes quickly, and I just can't picture a natural way for any of this to happen (hey Batman, let's take this fight to the Amazon quickly......wait, who's this? Barry Allen you say? You can run fast, but haven't yet adopted a persona? Well we'll make a note of that and.......whoa? Did you see that guy? He just swam REAL fast!). Plus you know how when any hero shows up in anything, they do that 'strike a pose and zoom in while they look cool'? That's gonna get reeeeaaal old by the end of the movie.

It's as if someone said 'Hey let's invert the Marvel formula and kick off with the assemble', then someone else said 'could be tricky introducing so many characters'......and neither of these people got their way, they've just fudged there way down the middle. I suppose you could argue that all of this makes for a better JL movie, but I'm far less excited about that. Or was, when they announced it at least.