Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60
  1. #46
    Extraordinary Member dietrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    8,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light of Justice View Post
    But Tim's origin heavily related to Jason. Is it okay to have Tim without including Jason? Or he just exist on narrative, like 'oh yeah there's robin before Tim, named Jason, but he's dead'?
    BTAS Tim's role was written for Jason but then the suits insisted that Robin in the show ought to match the current Robin in the comics so the writers named him Tim which is why that Robin has Jason's origin and outgoing personality

  2. #47
    Extraordinary Member dietrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    8,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the illustrious mr. kenway View Post
    I didn't know that because i never read Dark Knight Returns. She's an option if people want to explore her more. I liked Beware the Batman's use of Katana and Telltale pushing Tiffany forward.

    Duke and Luke are also options. My dark horse pick would be Anarky just because i liked the idea of him as an ex-robin. I think one of the writers wanted him to be the next Robin before Tim was created.
    I would go for Duke or Carrie for such a show.
    Duke already has some structure of his other/personal life and cast set up. It's undeveloped but it's there.

    Carrie because TDKR is short comic focused on Batman we so we didn't get much of the sidekick's personal life but what we details we did get could be built on.

  3. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dietrich View Post
    I would go for Duke or Carrie for such a show.
    Duke already has some structure of his other/personal life and cast set up. It's undeveloped but it's there.

    Carrie because TDKR is short comic focused on Batman we so we didn't get much of the sidekick's personal life but what we details we did get could be built on.
    Tim or Cass might be easier to do because you can figure out where they would go longterm. They have enough comics so you could have a 5 year plan or so. Granted both characters would have to deal with adulthood faster than they would in the comics so its not so different than a Duke or Carrie show.

    With Duke id probably outpace the comics by season 2 and have to figure out where he goes on my own.

  4. #49
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light of Justice View Post
    But Tim's origin heavily related to Jason. Is it okay to have Tim without including Jason? Or he just exist on narrative, like 'oh yeah there's robin before Tim, named Jason, but he's dead'?
    It was essentially Tim with Jason's name. But the narrative didn't really call for both of them, it worked fine with one composite character.

  5. #50
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    54,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    It was essentially Tim with Jason's name. But the narrative didn't really call for both of them, it worked fine with one composite character.
    Not that they couldn't have used both.

  6. #51

    Default

    They could even have added pathos to Bruce by having Jason die before the story starts. Illustrating the dangers of being Robin, while having Tim having to work to prove himself.

  7. #52
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Not that they couldn't have used both.
    They could, but as it was it didn't really require both.

    They basically just had a story in mind for Jason but gave him Tim's name instead because the higher ups wanted them to for synergy. Three Bat-partners is streamlined and manageable for a tv series. Just because they could doesn't mean from a writing perspective they should. Less is often more.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChangingStation View Post
    They could even have added pathos to Bruce by having Jason die before the story starts. Illustrating the dangers of being Robin, while having Tim having to work to prove himself.
    I feel like they avoided the same trap comic Batman fell into by looking really bad when he recruits another teenager after what happened to Jason. It just sort of breaks the whole concept.

    Bruce not having any kid partners again after what happened to Tim (at least until Terry, who is a different beast by that point) is a more natural and responsible response than what the comics did.

  8. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    They could, but as it was it didn't really require both.

    They basically just had a story in mind for Jason but gave him Tim's name instead because the higher ups wanted them to for synergy. Three Bat-partners is streamlined and manageable for a tv series. Just because they could doesn't mean from a writing perspective they should. Less is often more.



    I feel like they avoided the same trap comic Batman fell into by looking really bad when he recruits another teenager after what happened to Jason. It just sort of breaks the whole concept.

    Bruce not having any kid partners again after what happened to Tim (at least until Terry, who is a different beast by that point) is a more natural and responsible response than what the comics did.
    The thing is Bruce is absolutely against it at the start. It's everyone else insisting on Tim taking over when it becomes clear just how far his mental state is declining due to Jason's death, and even then, Bruce refuses to allow Tim to take over until he's satisfied that he can actually handle himself.

  9. #54
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    54,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    They could, but as it was it didn't really require both.

    They basically just had a story in mind for Jason but gave him Tim's name instead because the higher ups wanted them to for synergy. Three Bat-partners is streamlined and manageable for a tv series. Just because they could doesn't mean from a writing perspective they should. Less is often more.
    No one is saying they should've had 10 active Batfamily members on a single show, just that their approach doesn't necesarilly have to be the be all, end all, of depicting the family.
    I feel like they avoided the same trap comic Batman fell into by looking really bad when he recruits another teenager after what happened to Jason. It just sort of breaks the whole concept.

    Bruce not having any kid partners again after what happened to Tim (at least until Terry, who is a different beast by that point) is a more natural and responsible response than what the comics did.
    I don't know if it was a more natural or responsible. It showed him actually healing from Jason's death and moving on from it, and realizing what happened didn't invalidate Robin or that he needs a partner.

    The whole concept of a sidekick is irresponsible if you look too deeply into it one way or another.

  10. #55
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    No one is saying they should've had 10 active Batfamily members on a single show, just that their approach doesn't necesarilly have to be the be all, end all, of depicting the family.
    Ah gotcha. I thought you meant the the DCAU could have accommodate more, but they couldn't and have the same result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I don't know if it was a more natural or responsible. It showed him actually healing from Jason's death and moving on from it, and realizing what happened didn't invalidate Robin or that he needs a partner.

    The whole concept of a sidekick is irresponsible if you look too deeply into it one way or another.
    I don't know that Bruce ever really healed from it, especially when we later factor in Red Hood. I also don't think the reasoning that he needs a kid to help him or recruiting another kid without said kid's parent's knowledge or consent is a good look for him. And having the Joker kill Jason and continue to walk around doesn't make him look good either. At least in the DCAU, the Joker got a karmic death immediately afterward.

    Yes it's irresponsible, but that's why these are fantasy characters. Which worked fine until they killed one of the kids under his care, and then had him recruit more. It casts a pall over everything that came before or after aand pretty much breaks how the Bat-mythos works. I know that's not a popular opinion among fandom, but I'm sticking to it.

  11. #56
    Extraordinary Member dietrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    8,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChangingStation View Post
    They could even have added pathos to Bruce by having Jason die before the story starts. Illustrating the dangers of being Robin, while having Tim having to work to prove himself.
    That doesn't add pathos to Bruce. It just makes him a foolish selfish idiot who doesn't learn from experience.

    We can dance around it forever the reality is that Bruce should never have taken on another child sidekick after Jason but he had to because Robin sells toys
    Last edited by dietrich; 07-22-2020 at 03:31 PM.

  12. #57
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    54,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Ah gotcha. I thought you meant the the DCAU could have accommodate more, but they couldn't and have the same result.
    No, my point was that they could have accommodated more even though they didn't. It would've just necessitated more foward progression than we ended up having with B:TAS by the end of it.
    I don't know that Bruce ever really healed from it, especially when we later factor in Red Hood. I also don't think the reasoning that he needs a kid to help him or recruiting another kid without said kid's parent's knowledge or consent is a good look for him. And having the Joker kill Jason and continue to walk around doesn't make him look good either. At least in the DCAU, the Joker got a karmic death immediately afterward.
    Red Hood was, like, years later though. I think the value of Robin and what he brings to the table goes well beyond just the fact that he's a kid. I think they handled Batman's response to Joker killing Jason as reasonably as they possibly could without compromising his character and allowing him to still deal with that loss. Comic Joker wouldn't have stayed dead anyways.
    Yes it's irresponsible, but that's why these are fantasy characters. Which worked fine until they killed one of the kids under his care, and then had him recruit more. It casts a pall over everything that came before or after aand pretty much breaks how the Bat-mythos works. I know that's not a popular opinion among fandom, but I'm sticking to it.
    You're welcome to your opinion, but it's hard for me to think it broke the Bat-Mythos when the newer young heroes who appeared after Jason's death went on to be fairly successful (to the point where Robin had his own solo that lasted for several issues) and the Batfamily became even more of a thing in the comics as time went along. If anything the general consensus seems more accepting of Jason's death as part of the mythos.
    Quote Originally Posted by dietrich View Post
    That doesn't add pathos to Bruce. It just makes him a foolish selfish idiot who doesn't learn from experience.

    We can dance around it forever the reality is that Bruce should never have taken on another child sidekick after Jason but he had to because Robin sells toys
    Fans can not want him too but the reality is (from a comic standpoint) that he did move on and Tim ended up being the perfect Robin he needed at the time. So he learned but the lesson he learned wasn't that there was no value in Robin or that he should never take up a partner again.

    I don't think the concerns that led to Tim's creation are any less valid than the ones that got Jason killed.

  13. #58
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Red Hood was, like, years later though. I think the value of Robin and what he brings to the table goes well beyond just the fact that he's a kid. I think they handled Batman's response to Joker killing Jason as reasonably as they possibly could without compromising his character and allowing him to still deal with that loss. Comic Joker wouldn't have stayed dead anyways.
    Jason's death would be brought up quite frequently throughout the 90s and 2000s though. Considering how grim Bruce became in that era due to the cumulative effect of stuff like Jason and later Bane breaking his back, it's doubtful he ever really "healed" from it.

    I don't think getting another kid sidekick is a reasonable response to that trauma, especially when the kid is not his. His character was IMO pretty compromised. It's kind of DC wanting to have it both ways by having realistic consequences to a child soldier born from one author's particular dislike for the whole Robin concept, DC okaying it for a stunt and then backtracking to keep the brand going. The whole thing added together does not make Bruce look like a sane or responsible person if he wants to keep kids safe. You could suspend disbelief a little easier with Dick, before Jason died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    You're welcome to your opinion, but it's hard for me to think it broke the Bat-Mythos when the newer young heroes who appeared after Jason's death went on to be fairly successful (to the point where Robin had his own solo that lasted for several issues) and the Batfamily became even more of a thing in the comics as time went along. If anything the general consensus seems more accepting of Jason's death as part of the mythos.
    I think it broke it from an overall story perspective for Bruce, not a franchising perspective. Franchising the brand so DC can make more money is necessary for them to attract other audiences, and some of the these sidekicks have pretty good stories themselves in isolation. Nobody can argue there isn't objective success here. Narrative/story telling for individual people is a different matter, especially if our primary concern is for the main character and not the spin offs.

    overall general consensus is that it is an essential part of the mythos because the Bat-Family is popular. Some of us just don't think it benefits Bruce that much at all, especially as it was one of the events that gradually sucked all the fun and likability out of the character.

  14. #59
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    54,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Jason's death would be brought up quite frequently throughout the 90s and 2000s though. Considering how grim Bruce became in that era due to the cumulative effect of stuff like Jason and later Bane breaking his back, it's doubtful he ever really "healed" from it.
    He totally recovered from Bane breaking his back though. In-fact after Knightfall he was improved relatively from how he had been acting pre-back breaking.

    But it's like his parent's death. It still has this impact on him but he's moved on from it enough to function and still be the hero he needs to be.
    I don't think getting another kid sidekick is a reasonable response to that trauma, especially when the kid is not his. His character was IMO pretty compromised. It's kind of DC wanting to have it both ways by having realistic consequences to a child soldier born from one author's particular dislike for the whole Robin concept, DC okaying it for a stunt and then backtracking to keep the brand going. The whole thing added together does not make Bruce look like a sane or responsible person if he wants to keep kids safe. You could suspend disbelief a little easier with Dick, before Jason died.
    I don't see it as much backtracking as just developing the story in a new direction. I mean, he seemed perfectly sane, rational, and human to me in the stories with Tim and in "A lonely place of living" even if he was still mired in the trauma of what happened to Jason, but I guess that take on the material can be subjective.

    I think Robin as a whole always suspended belief before Jason died. I don't think that would have gone away even if they hadn't done what they did and with the way modern comics were developing people would probably have still questioned it. I don't think it would've remained any easier.
    I think it broke it from an overall story perspective for Bruce, not a franchising perspective. Franchising the brand so DC can make more money is necessary for them to attract other audiences, and some of the these sidekicks have pretty good stories themselves in isolation. Nobody can argue there isn't objective success here. Narrative/story telling for individual people is a different matter, especially if our primary concern is for the main character and not the spin offs.
    I think the existence of the future protege's added to Bruce's character in a way we didn't see with past protege's, so on that level I think it was a boon from a character perspective. But I don't see the two as separated from each other since it should all connect back to Batman at the end of the day.
    overall general consensus is that it is an essential part of the mythos because the Bat-Family is popular. Some of us just don't think it benefits Bruce that much at all, especially as it was one of the events that gradually sucked all the fun and likability out of the character.
    But it's also been utilized in material that was heavily Bruce-focused and well-received. so I don't think it's a dealbreaker in that regard.

  15. #60

    Default

    I wouldn't mind Damian getting adapted but i could see them running into issues with him because of his age and figuring out what tone to use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •