Tim Drake: Robin, Red Robin Appreciation 2018

[Lhynn]

Seems to me like you are denying the fact that a lot of people didnt like jason. Also what is this rubbish about not making a character a sacrificial lamb. if you need to kill a character to tell a story and you believe the story to be worth it, do so.
To this day Jasons death has been a defining moment for Batman, it may not have been handled in the best way possible, but it definitely wasnt poorly done.

Support characters die all the time in fiction, even protagonists that dont resonate with the audience anymore get killed off. Sometimes it has nothing to do with them, maybe the author just wants to go in another direction and replace the lead. This also happens, its all storytelling. And other than well written stories i have no demands for said characters.

[Lhynn]

But what gets me, is how contradicting several directions are about the matter. Starlin was on the take that "Robin" was a concept he hated. He seemed to want the comic Batman to take the same ground as the popular movie (which came around the same time). Granted some stories at the time were popular because they took that approach, but so were others were Jason/Robin was essential for the core of said sucess. A Dark Knight Returns without Jason and a Robin isn`t the same thing, for example. But then you read how Wolfman and Grant had obviously opposing views and despite what O`Neil said (he`s been especifically apologetic about his famous remark on his Jason`s return would be a sleazy stunt) were already lining up someone else.

I personally believe batman is enriched by having a robin and disagree with Starlin. I also believe that batman and robin are good enough concepts to exist independently.

Starlin, very obviously, wasn`t already in the helm by the time "A Lonely Place of Dying" comes in. We have contraditorial statements and directions here, gentlemen. In the big picture, it`s obvious Robin is essential for the franchise and I`ve always defended such a theory. But I never liked or respected the office to make a lamb out of a sacrifise.

The office disagreed tho, which is why they sought a new robin so fast, they wanted what the character brought and there were obviously also economical reasons behind it. Robin was popular.

The cost was post-death writers, for years, always refering Jason as this error101, when all the time he was alive, even during DITF by the writer who admitadly hated the concept, he ws never described as such a thing. Someone with different struggles than Grayson? Sure. But that`s a narrative plus, not a detritment.

To this day i think batman refuses to acknowledge Jason is alive. So do most of his writers, it is a bit jarring, but that big was the impact of jasons death on the batman mythos. And they refuse to let go of the character development that his death brought.

I think it shows the point on how Jason was mostly presented when compared to the newcomer in Tim and I think that only helped Tim being liked and accepted. It`s very obvious and it`s not a knock on Tim, is just dirty business all around.

As i said, i dont think killing a character to sell books should be seen as dirty, especially if its taken advantage of to make good stories and make the characters even more interesting. This is a point ill always defend, even if a character i particularly fancy gets axed, tell a good story. I might not like it or even keep following the book, but i wont hate you for it or think it was dirty.

I think what got Tim accepted by almost everyone was that he was clearly less capable than jason, this softened the blow when Tim came, also that Tim had a deep respect for both Jason, and the Robin legacy, which reflected a lot of jasons fans thoughts at the time. Tim came not to replace him, but to honor him in a way, or at least that was what the narrative was in the book. It was well handled.

[Aioros22]

Seems to me like you are denying the fact that a lot of people didnt like jason.

I actually mention how I don`t, considering how his predecessor remains to this day, the most popular version of Robin. It`s only natural.

What I don`t accept, because it wasn`t even true back then, is the made up fact that he was majorily hated by fans of the franchise.

Also what is this rubbish about not making a character a sacrificial lamb. if you need to kill a character to tell a story and you believe the story to be worth it, do so.

A story needs to have it`s own narrative value to be pursued. What pushed this further wasn`t a story for it`s own "obvious conclusion". A one-off poll that was never to be used ever again because of the backlash it sparked doesn`t have narrative value whatsoever to me. It`s not abot characters not being able to die. When I say sacrifcial lamb is how it was done at almost nothing his expense as a character for years to build the next in line - whoever it was going to be.

To this day Jasons death has been a defining moment for Batman, it may not have been handled in the best way possible, but it definitely wasnt poorly done.

I didn`t said it wasn`t defining. I said the backstage mechanics were dirty business and tainted it.

Look, if it didn`t the main editor wouldn`t have apologized for it later. But they received backlash, Starlin was out right after and it wouldn`t take much longer for them to "fix it". O Neil didn`t stay as the main guy in the office much more often either.

Support characters die all the time in fiction, even protagonists that dont resonate with the audience anymore get killed off. Sometimes it has nothing to do with them, maybe the author just wants to go in another direction and replace the lead. This also happens, its all storytelling. And other than well written stories i have no demands for said characters.

When it`s done organically and with a clear direction, sure.

When it`s done with a contradicting agenda, meh.

[Atlanta96]

Yep, the respect for Jason and Dick that was shown with Tim's introduction really worked to his advantage. I still think Tim had one of the best character introductions in comics since the Silver Age. It felt so natural, transitioning from LPoD to his development in the main Bat-Books to the Robin minis, and concluding with his massively popular solo book. They took small steps that all succeeded, instead of trying and failing to build him up slowly and then shoving him down everyone's throats like they do nowadays.

[Lhynn]

What I don`t accept, because it wasn`t even true back then, is the made up fact that he was majorily hated by fans of the franchise.

Well, the narrative seems to be that jason wasnt liked because he was a carbon copy of Dick, and when this got changed it was already too late. Im probably wrong, but this is what ive been told since i started getting interested on it.

A story needs to have it`s own narrative value to be pursued. What pushed this further wasn`t a story for it`s own "obvious conclusion". A one-off poll that was never to be used ever again because of the backlash it sparked doesn`t have narrative value whatsoever to me. It`s not abot characters not being able to die. When I say sacrifcial lamb is how it was done at almost nothing his expense as a character for years to build the next in line - whoever it was going to be.

Jasons death had nothing to do with "the next in line", and i think if they hadnt gone for the voting result, they would have killed jason by default, because the writer simply didnt like him and thought batman worked better without him.

I didn`t said it wasn`t defining. I said the backstage mechanics were dirty business and tainted it.

Look, if it didn`t the main editor wouldn`t have apologized for it later. But they received backlash, Starlin was out right after and it wouldn`t take much longer for them to "fix it". O Neil didn`t stay as the main guy in the office much more often either.

Hm, fair point, i concede there.

When it`s done organically and with a clear direction, sure.
When it`s done with a contradicting agenda, meh.

True enough. I still think Jason dying was probably the single most important thing to happen to Batman since Bruce parents died, and i believe his death was ultimately very valuable, regardless of the reasons that made it happen. I think if they knew back then what they know now, they still would have killed him just because of this.

[Aioros22]

I personally believe batman is enriched by having a robin and disagree with Starlin. I also believe that batman and robin are good enough concepts to exist independently.

Agreed.

The office disagreed tho, which is why they sought a new robin so fast, they wanted what the character brought and there were obviously also economical reasons behind it. Robin was popular.

Agreed. But even before the actual death is interesting to note that disagreement even before the backlash and consequent fix. It`s like some writers just knew that Robin is not only popular but essential.

To this day i think batman refuses to acknowledge Jason is alive. So do most of his writers, it is a bit jarring, but that big was the impact of jasons death on the batman mythos. And they refuse to let go of the character development that his death brought.

Can you expand on this? It seems you`re going a bit meta considering they obviously have, not to mention his big use in spreading media, since.

As i said, i dont think killing a character to sell books should be seen as dirty, especially if its taken advantage of to make good stories and make the characters even more interesting. This is a point ill always defend, even if a character i particularly fancy gets axed, tell a good story. I might not like it or even keep following the book, but i wont hate you for it or think it was dirty.

I understand, but it`s not the killing. It`s the agenda and office backstages. They weren`t natural as they tend to be.

I think what got Tim accepted by almost everyone was that he was clearly less capable than jason, this softened the blow when Tim came, also that Tim had a deep respect for both Jason, and the Robin legacy, which reflected a lot of jasons fans thoughts at the time. Tim came not to replace him, but to honor him in a way, or at least that was what the narrative was in the book. It was well handled.

Well, that`s in-story. I mean a bit on how it was handled and though out. They paired him with Dick right on, so the first could pass the torch directly. And while a few writers did use Jason`s example respectfully well towards Tim as you mention, particularly in the Grant-Breygfole-Aparo stories, some (most I seem to recall) others didn`t. And in that case, it was obvious what the point was.

Again, not a single knock on Tim as a character or worthyness as Robin. I`m talking of backstage antics.

[Lhynn]

Can you expand on this? It seems you`re going a bit meta considering they obviously have, not to mention his big use in spreading media, since.

His robin uniform is still at the batcave, jason is still a cautionary tale, we even saw on this week trinity batman lamenting his death. And i dont need to remind you that he didnt think of Damian, someone who has died more recently and arguably hit bruce harder.

I understand, but it`s not the killing. It`s the agenda and office backstages. They weren`t natural as they tend to be.

There will always be backstage talk and agenda pushing, there will always be someone that doesnt want something to happen and someone that does, especially with a property like batman, that has several publications and several writers per publication. Its as natural as most are with marvel and DC.

others didn`t.

When did this happen? Jason was always treated with reverence up until he was trying to murder Tim i seem to recall.

[Aioros22]

Yep, the respect for Jason and Dick that was shown with Tim's introduction really worked to his advantage. I still think Tim had one of the best character introductions in comics since the Silver Age. It felt so natural, transitioning from LPoD to his development in the main Bat-Books to the Robin minis, and concluding with his massively popular solo book. They took small steps that all succeeded, instead of trying and failing to build him up slowly and then shoving him down everyone's throats like they do nowadays.

I enjoyed that, particularly the moments of instropection when "talking" with Jason. The Grant and Breygfole era is dear to me. But alas, we are talking of a great creative team here.

[Aioros22]

His robin uniform is still at the batcave, jason is still a cautionary tale, we even saw on this week trinity batman lamenting his death. And i dont need to remind you that he didnt think of Damian, someone who has died more recently and arguably hit bruce harder

At this point, everyone`s Robin uniform is on display. Tim`s on display. Dick`s on display (and just seen on a flashnack on last issue of RATHO in the opening sequence). I`m not sure the Trinity title is supposed to be on line with the rest of Rebirth in terms of continuity but sure, a few writers may prefer the cautionary tale as you say. But most seem have moved on. It`s there when Jason and Bruce are in the same room because it helped shaped them but they don`t dwell on it, they use it to make them progress.

There will always be backstage talk and agenda pushing, there will always be someone that doesnt want something to happen and someone that does, especially with a property like batman, that has several publications and several authors per publication. Its as natural as most are with marvel and DC

I haven`t read about a particular window of time in a franchise being this contraditory and controversial when handling said titles in both Marvel or DC. I believe there are other examples, but they aren`t the accepted normalcy. I don`t think, nay have I ever read about it, that the death of Jean Grey (which wasn`t that far behind in terms of relevancy or history) was handled like that and I`m sure there were writers who disagreed with the thing. Well, there`s Superman dying too...which also felt pretty much another stunt to spark more "supers" around with the rest of the game.

Batman kind of feels a especific property because it was singlehandely the one that gained the most with the whole realistic take and subquent "Grim and gritty" phase that washed over the mainstream publishing since the late 70`s. So we get this phase where both takes (Batman and a Batman and Robin) are being experimented and sucessfully so. I don`t think they had any natural clear direction at that time. They were trying what could work and some of it clashed.

When did this happen? Jason was always treated with reverence up until he was trying to murder Tim i seem to recall.

I`m thinking of stories like the one during Underworld Unleashed where a Jason in hell shows up. I don`t recall if it end up being a ruse but it showed how some writers were simply interested in pushing the angle of Jason as the failure and little else to take the easy route with Tim.

I know you defend he had his own fault in the wake of his death, and truly enough, he also did. What I dont subscrive is that he did it just because. He made a decision to save a life at a cost but I don`t feel a good deal of writers always made that appearant to readers over the years.

[Lhynn]

At this point, everyone`s Robin uniform is on display. Tim`s on display. Dick`s on display (and just seen on a flashnack on last issue of RATHO in the opening sequence). I`m not sure the Trinity title is supposed to be on line with the rest of Rebirth in terms of continuity but sure, a few writers may prefer the cautionary tale as you say. But most seem have moved on. It`s there when Jason and Bruce are in the same room because it helped shaped them but they don`t dwell on it, they use it to make them progress.

I meant the shrine, the one that seems to get broken every time something bad happens to a robin.

I haven`t read about a particular window of time in a franchise being this contraditory and controversial when handling said titles in both Marvel or DC. I believe there are other examples, but they aren`t the accepted normalcy. I don`t think, nay have I ever read about it, that the death of Jean Grey (which wasn`t that far behind in terms of relevancy or history) was handled like that and I`m sure there were writers who disagreed with the thing. Well, there`s Superman dying too...which also felt pretty much another stunt to spark more "supers" around with the rest of the game.

Its fairly common stuff, tho i will grant you that Jasons death wasnt a publicity stunt or to develop characters, but simply to get rid of him because of the agenda of the writer at the time.

I`m thinking of stories like the one during Underworld Unleashed where a Jason in hell shows up. I don`t recall if it end up being a ruse but it showed how some writers were simply interested in pushing the angle of Jason as the failure and little else to take the easy route with Tim.
I know you defend he had his own fault in the wake of his death, and truly enough, he also did. What I dont subscrive is that he did it just because. He made a decision to save a life at a cost but I don`t feel a good deal of writers always made that appearant to readers over the years.

Oh, he didnt do it just because, he had every reason to do it, yet i feel that it wasnt so out of character that he didnt think things through, it was after all an emotional time and he let his emotions get the better of him before. I think the angle of him being a failure as robin back then works for the character tho, its the source of a lot of what makes Jason stories appealing and why we want to see him succeed. Of course no one but him and maybe the joker sees it like that, Bruce sees it as his own failure, Tim though he was a great man and someone to admire.

The whole thing is interesting because Bruce was the adult there, its only natural to assume that it was his fault, he failed to supervise him, to keep him safe, but then again, Robin is suposed to be an existence that batman doesnt need to worry about, hes there to help, not to hinder, therefore why Jason sees it as his own failure.

[JasonTodd428]

But fans didn't like Jason that much. They had good reason to get rid of him. They didn't do it perfectly but it was still understandable.

My problem with the whole thing is the way they chose to go about it. They wanted to remove Robin from the "Batman and Robin" equation because they wanted a solo Batman. That happens and has in fact been happening in recent years with Snyder's run on the title. There were lots of ways for them to have gone about this but instead of chosing something sensible like creating a Batman and Robin title or some such they went for the most gimmicky and controversial way to "get rid of the Robin fans hate so badly". They couldn't just kill him off, oh no they had to pull a stunt to seemingly justify the decision they had already reached. To me it felt like they were covering their asses with the stunt. It was bad business.

[godisawesome]

My problem with the whole thing is the way they chose to go about it. They wanted to remove Robin from the "Batman and Robin" equation because they wanted a solo Batman. That happens and has in fact been happening in recent years with Snyder's run on the title. There were lots of ways for them to have gone about this but instead of chosing something sensible like creating a Batman and Robin title or some such they went for the most gimmicky and controversial way to "get rid of the Robin fans hate so badly". They couldn't just kill him off, oh no they had to pull a stunt to seemingly justify the decision they had already reached. To me it felt like they were covering their asses with the stunt. It was bad business.

The weird part about the Batoffice is that each time they pull a stunt like killing a Robin-- any Robin or even a Batman-- there's still usually some extremely good fallout stemming from it at some point in publication history, whereas other series get killed or permanently fractured by such decisions. A Death In The Family lead both to Tim Drake as Robin (where the biggest conceptual difference was trying to make him a spinoff as opposed to a sidekick) and Under the Hood. Knightfall gave us Bane. Forever Evil lead to Grayson. Presumably, 'TEC will lead to something better for Tim than the New 52. It's Steph and Damian's deaths that feel the most tacked on; the former because it was clearly an attempt to bury the character (Jason's death at least was heroic and had some dignity to his last actions) and the latter felt more like Morrison insisting *** couldn't play with his toy.

Though I will say, I did love some of the reverence they had Tim display towards Jason for years. I kind of wish that if they changed anything in Rebirth aside from heading back towards a Post-Crisis take on Tim, it would be to tackle how Tim handled Jason's return mentally.

[gwhh]

His Official Stats in 2004:



I wonder when Tim will hit his growth spur. He still 5 5 here and Step Brown out weights him by 4 pounds!

[JasonTodd428]

The weird part about the Batoffice is that each time they pull a stunt like killing a Robin-- any Robin or even a Batman-- there's still usually some extremely good fallout stemming from it at some point in publication history, whereas other series get killed or permanently fractured by such decisions. A Death In The Family lead both to Tim Drake as Robin (where the biggest conceptual difference was trying to make him a spinoff as opposed to a sidekick) and Under the Hood. Knightfall gave us Bane. Forever Evil lead to Grayson. Presumably, 'TEC will lead to something better for Tim than the New 52. It's Steph and Damian's deaths that feel the most tacked on; the former because it was clearly an attempt to bury the character (Jason's death at least was heroic and had some dignity to his last actions) and the latter felt more like Morrison insisting *** couldn't play with his toy.

Though I will say, I did love some of the reverence they had Tim display towards Jason for years. I kind of wish that if they changed anything in Rebirth aside from heading back towards a Post-Crisis take on Tim, it would be to tackle how Tim handled Jason's return mentally.

I won't deny that all of those have lead to good fallout for those involved however the way Jason's death was handled outside of the actual comic itself left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt it downplayed the actual heroic-ness of his death and threw the dignity of his last actions out the window. Subsequent years of stories wherein Jason is treated as a cautionary tale or where he is said to have been a "bad Robin" only help to exacerbate this idea IMO. These days all people focus on is how he was "voted by fans to die in a phone pole" and/or that he was a "bad Robin" not that he had "died attempting to save his mother from the bomb which killed him". It is a complete disservice to the character that has its origin in that damned stunt they pulled back when they killed him off.

I did like how Tim treated Jason's memory with reverence and I do think that's where the idea of him adopting the name "Red Robin" from the get go in the N52 is a reference to. (Whatever other problems his N52 orgin had I did like that little bit.) I have also always been curious what his mental reaction to Jason's return was back in the Pre-FP days.

[Aahz]

I`m thinking of stories like the one during Underworld Unleashed where a Jason in hell shows up. I don`t recall if it end up being a ruse but it showed how some writers were simply interested in pushing the angle of Jason as the failure and little else to take the easy route with Tim.

That was Batman: Demon, in Under World Unleashed Neron offered Bruce to bring Jason back to live.

Btw. Jason was also one of the heroic souls Neron wanted to use in Deadman Dead Again to gain power, and in Green Arrow Vol 3 #7 Jason was shown to be in heaven.