Most integral supporting character in the mythos

[MajorHoy]

NOTE: This thread was created in July of 2014.
----------------------------------------------------

With 99 people having voted so far, results show:

* Robin = 34 votes
* Alfred = 34 votes
* Commissioner Gordon = 19 votes
* The Joker = 9 votes
* other = 3 votes

[MajorHoy]

We're up to 110 people having voted now:

* Robin = 39 votes
* Alfred = 37 votes
* Commissioner Gordon = 21 votes
* The Joker = 10 votes
* other = 3 votes

[MajorHoy]

Might as well bump this up by saying that 113 people have now voted:

* Robin = 41 votes
* Alfred = 38 votes
* Commissioner Gordon = 21 votes
* The Joker = 10 votes
* other = 3 votes

Alfred is still doing well, even though last I heard I thought he was still dead.

[Bat-Meal]

I don't actually feel that any of them are integral, but Alfred existing for the type of upbringing Bruce had to allow him to become Batman is important.

I feel you could swap-out Robin with a Batgirl, or any of the other teen sidekicks without much difference. Bruce manages fine without a Robin in the films anyway. Gordon could be swapped-out with another of the good cops, not a huge difference. And the Joker is just one of many villains.

They all add to the mythos of course, but so do pretty much all of the Batfamily (and rogues) in some way, insofar as they create more relationship dynamics for Bruce to interact and bounce off of.

[Rakiduam]

Batman has existed without Robin, the Joker and Alfred. Gordon has always been there, he legitimizes his work and was his first ally.

[Vakanai]

Alfred, closely followed by Gordon. The movies have proven that Robin isn't as integral to Batman despite Dick's long comic history. I feel the votes leaning so heavily in his favor has more to do with his popularity here, rather than how important he actually is.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman has existed without Robin, the Joker and Alfred. Gordon has always been there, he legitimizes his work and was his first ally.

I love Gordon, but I think Batman could exist without him just as easily as the other three.

In modern times, Batman's already on thin ice with some people for being a rich white guy who beats up lower class criminals. I don't view the character that way, but it's a perception that skilled writers need to put the effort in to disproving to modern audiences. Combining that with a pro-cop narrative that Gordon invites can make it harder. I know they pay lip service to there being corrupt cops in Gotham that both Bruce and Gordon fight against, but I feel that if it weren't for Gordon the "Batman works closely with the police" element would have been excised completely by now.

Alfred, closely followed by Gordon. The movies have proven that Robin isn't as integral to Batman despite Dick's long comic history. I feel the votes leaning so heavily in his favor has more to do with his popularity here, rather than how important he actually is.

I don't know if they prove it so much as they just narrowed it down to certain types of stories that have Batman be a grounded lone wolf and the straight man to all the craziness surrounding him. Even so, the live action movies with solo Batman are often criticized for Bruce being rather one-note and upstaged in comparison to his villains, even with Gordon and Alfred present. The father/son dynamic he has with Dick adds another humanizing layer to him that isn't really replicated with other characters (and is diluted when you surround him with 20+ kids or whatever), so it IS very important to making Bruce an interesting character. Because you can only have so many iterations of damaged loner Batman before it gets old real quick, and the movies still barely have time to scratch the surface of even that.

[MajorHoy]

Alfred, closely followed by Gordon. The movies have proven that Robin isn't as integral to Batman despite Dick's long comic history. I feel the votes leaning so heavily in his favor has more to do with his popularity here, rather than how important he actually is.

Back when they first introduced Tim Drake, the writers were focusing on how after Jason's death Batman had become too dark and violent. Tim, after figuring out Dick Grayson's secret identity, tried to convince Dick to go back to being Robin, but instead it wound up that Tim would take on that role.

So if people were remembering that period, especially if they first started regularly following the Batman comic books then, I could see how Robin might be the most logical answer to them.

[SiegePerilous02]

For a Batman story to work, you really only need Batman and a villain. Gordon, Alfred and Robin are all more or less on equal ground as being able to float in and out stories depending on which one is needed at any given time.

[godisawesome]

Because the poll asks about the mythosm I put down Robin, simply because the larger mythos always inevitably grows and expands exponentially once sidekicks are allowed, and because sidekicks and spin-off characters are a greater legacy of Batman on all comic properties than butlers and mentors.

Batman himself doesn’t need them, but the mythos is larger than Batman.

[prepmaster]

Dare i say the Joker? He is holding an ongoing now instead of Gordon, Alfred and has a billion dollar movie with his name. A hero is as good as his villains push him to be. Robin also has an on going but is still disposable in cinematic storytelling.

[Rakiduam]

Dare i say the Joker? He is holding an ongoing now instead of Gordon, Alfred and has a billion dollar movie with his name. A hero is as good as his villains push him to be. Robin also has an on going but is still disposable in cinematic storytelling.

They are all disposable in cinematic storytelling, even Batman if you are looking at the Joker movie.

[Gaius]

Thomas and Martha Wayne's corpses.

[SiegePerilous02]

They are all disposable in cinematic storytelling, even Batman if you are looking at the Joker movie.

Yeah, the suits treating Dick (or Robin and Batgirl in general) as disposable because Joel Shumacher traumatized them doesn't mean he inherently is.

Even Nolan and Bale's opinions of him don't carry too much infallible weight since their take on Batman ran as far away from the superhero roots of the character as they possibly could. Neither does Burton's as he said his first Batman film was rather boring and he didn't care for comics in general.

[Vakanai]

I don't know if they prove it so much as they just narrowed it down to certain types of stories that have Batman be a grounded lone wolf and the straight man to all the craziness surrounding him. Even so, the live action movies with solo Batman are often criticized for Bruce being rather one-note and upstaged in comparison to his villains, even with Gordon and Alfred present. The father/son dynamic he has with Dick adds another humanizing layer to him that isn't really replicated with other characters (and is diluted when you surround him with 20+ kids or whatever), so it IS very important to making Bruce an interesting character. Because you can only have so many iterations of damaged loner Batman before it gets old real quick, and the movies still barely have time to scratch the surface of even that.

I don't think Robin would fix the villain upstaging thing, and I'm definitely not sure it'd make him resonate more with audiences. Not unless they really tonally shift Batman away from the serious storytelling mode and towards something more campy. Because I don't think you can do Robin young enough for the father/son dynamic thing to work and not have it be a campier, more goofy take. That's just the problem of a kid Robin.