On top of other criticisms/condemnations that this movie gets, another complaint I've seen is Robin being accused as a spoiled, whiny brat.
I don't necessarily agree with this complaint. The end of BF was supposed to be a beginning for Batman and Robin to work together. Dick feels that Bruce isn't taking him seriously and feels patronized, and he gets frustrated that Bruce needs to rescue him all the time. This continues from his inexperience during his first time out as Robin towards the end of BF, and this movie shows us his journey towards maturity as a crime-fighter. Eventually, Batman and Robin realised they needed to trust each other in order to make their partnership work.
I think what most people's problem with Robin in Schumacher's films is the fact that Chris O'Donnell is too old for the character he's playing. Would this character arc be better appreciated if someone younger played the part?
I don't think COD's age was a big problem and in this case, a younger actor might have been even worse criticised for being a "brat". He was fine.
It's true that Robin lashed out at Batman in this often, but I could see where he's coming from. And Bruce needed to learn that he had to trust him and count on him in the fight in order for them to really be partners, as Robin himself said referring to the Flying Graysons and Batman repeated near the end.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Sun, 10 Jan 2016, 03:31
I don't think COD's age was a big problem and in this case, a younger actor might have been even worse criticised for being a "brat". He was fine.
Yes, perhaps you're right. We should take into account that they are people out there who aren't keen on the idea of a very young Robin, not even as a teenager. Whether it's comics or on film.
I want to know if anybody had problems with Dick seemingly changing codenames and different outfits as it was implied at the start of the film, even going by the name Nightwing? I don't have an issue with it, by the way.
I had zero issue with that, and if the film had not been a failure, a Nightwing spin-off was on the way with COD starring.
Schumacher was between a rock and a hard place where he didn't want to show Batman endangering children on the one hand but the stories he told work better with Robin played as a young brat. O'Donnell did great under the circumstances but his casting was a compromise in favor of not making Batman unsympathetic to audiences.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Mon, 11 Jan 2016, 10:14
I had zero issue with that, and if the film had not been a failure, a Nightwing spin-off was on the way with COD starring.
That's right.
Quote
You previously revealed that there was going to be a spin-off for Robin, but that didn't end up happening.
Yeah there was at one point: Nightwing. When the reviews came out on Batman & Robin, that was shut down immediately.
http://www.etonline.com/news/165866_batman_forever_20_years_later_chris_odonnell_talks_franchise/
Sure, Robin is younger in the comics. But I found O'Donnell likeable in the role. That goes a long way. Schumacher gave us Grayson's origin more or less as it is in the comics. That alone garners my respect. In contrast to Burt Ward (which doesn't make it better, just different) we get cocky angst of a young man looking to claim revenge, going down a path that Bruce now knows leads to a dark place. For live action, that was something different for the time.
At least Schumacher had the guts to provide a costume wearing version of Dick Grayson, and not someone whose name just happens to Robin. I'm still cringing at that.
I feel the same way. Schumacher's Robin gets too much flak. It's not the best ever version, but one that I have grown to like.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 13 Jan 2016, 19:59
Sure, Robin is younger in the comics. But I found O'Donnell likeable in the role. That goes a long way. Schumacher gave us Grayson's origin more or less as it is in the comics. That alone garners my respect. In contrast to Burt Ward (which doesn't make it better, just different) we get cocky angst of a young man looking to claim revenge, going down a path that Bruce now knows leads to a dark place. For live action, that was something different for the time.
This is one plot line that gets criminally ignored. I once had an argument with somebody about Batman's loose code in the Nolan films, and he tried to dismiss my complaints by trying to look for faults in Burton/Schumacher's films e.g. accusing Bruce as a hypocrite for trying to discourage Dick in seeking revenge over his family's murders when he killed in B89 and BR. I didn't think about it at the time because I hadn't seen BF in ages, and I actually thought this BS artist might have had a point. :-[
But when I watched the film again, and particularly this scene in context, I understood and appreciate that Bruce was talking about his own personal experience after he had avenged his parents. He realized that killing Joker failed to put him at peace, and he was looking to protect Dick from making that same mistake. People can complain about Bruce having sidekicks all they want. But there if they're honest, they'd acknowledge that his responsibility and influence in helping Dick here was possibly his greatest achievement.
I agree and as I said, people are way too harsh on COD as Robin...
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 10:15This is one plot line that gets criminally ignored. I once had an argument with somebody about Batman's loose code in the Nolan films, and he tried to dismiss my complaints by trying to look for faults in Burton/Schumacher's films e.g. accusing Bruce as a hypocrite for trying to discourage Dick in seeking revenge over his family's murders when he killed in B89 and BR. I didn't think about it at the time because I hadn't seen BF in ages, and I actually thought this BS artist might have had a point. :-[
But when I watched the film again, and particularly this scene in context, I understood and appreciate that Bruce was talking about his own personal experience after he had avenged his parents. He realized that killing Joker failed to put him at peace, and he was looking to protect Dick from making that same mistake. People can complain about Bruce having sidekicks all they want. But there if they're honest, they'd acknowledge that his responsibility and influence in helping Dick here was possibly his greatest achievement.
There isn't an issue here with either the Nolan movies or the Burton movies with that. And Batman didn't kill the Joker in Batman 89.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
I think Robin plays well in these films because it allows Bruce to essentially look at himself at an earlier stage in his life and work on demons he was not confronting before through helping Dick. I think both BF and B&R have very positive messages in them which I believe should be the anchor to any Batman movie. In a world where there is so much darkness and misery, it's nice to pop in a movie where we can split right and wrong down the middle and find a guiding morality that says there's virtue in doing the right thing.
I recently watched the Batman Forever commentary and they did discuss the characters age and future plans quite a bit and I thought they did a good job. Burt ward was 21 when he first played the character in a much less violent version. Michael J. Fox and Kiefer Sutherland were considered for the character in the first film and they were 28 and 23 respectively. Marlon Waynes would have been 20 at the time of the second film. Carol Kane indicated that Bob felt the 12 year old robin worked for the comics but would not have worked in live action, there's no way Batman would allow a child of that age to work alongside him. The parental groups complained enough about Batman Returns, imagine if the film put a 12 year old against supervillains?
They did indicate the intial plan was always to set up Nightwing . Notice the way the character evolves; at first in batman forever he wears tights similar to the early comics, then dos the Robin armoured suit. In Batman and Robin he starts with a Nighwing suit with Robin colours before changing to generic colours. I'm sure the next time we saw him he'd have become Nightwing.
I understand the criticisms of the character in batman and robin, he spends a lot of time acting like a spoiled brat about how Bruce makes the rules (Bruce is the leader and the wallet behind the team, he formed it). The scene where Batman disables the red bird was kind of annoying. I did like them coming full circle though both temporarily wanting to go off alone before realizing they need each other. It's too bad they shoehorned Batgirl into the film, it could have made for a better ending without her and she messed up that relationship between Bruce and Dick.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 19:48
It's too bad they shoehorned Batgirl into the film, it could have made for a better ending without her and she messed up that relationship between Bruce and Dick.
In what sense? I thought the dialogue involving her definitely could've been better, but I liked the idea that her inclusion into the team brought Bruce Wayne a sense of family, especially when Alfred was cured in the end.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 11:07
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 27 Apr 2016, 19:48
It's too bad they shoehorned Batgirl into the film, it could have made for a better ending without her and she messed up that relationship between Bruce and Dick.
In what sense? I thought the dialogue involving her definitely could've been better, but I liked the idea that her inclusion into the team brought Bruce Wayne a sense of family, especially when Alfred was cured in the end.
It didn't exactly allow Robin to flourish and develop as a character as much as he could have. It seemed to me her only purpose was defeating Ivy but she didn't have to be beaten up, they could have done it in a manner which wasn't misogynistic. I also felt her plotline was mostly a rehash of Dick's from the previous film; believing Bruce had a secret and determined to find out what it was. I'd have preferred if they had barbara but didn't let her become batgirl yet.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 15:05
It didn't exactly allow Robin to flourish and develop as a character as much as he could have. It seemed to me her only purpose was defeating Ivy but she didn't have to be beaten up, they could have done it in a manner which wasn't misogynistic. I also felt her plotline was mostly a rehash of Dick's from the previous film; believing Bruce had a secret and determined to find out what it was. I'd have preferred if they had barbara but didn't let her become batgirl yet.
You are right about how they copied the same arc, more or less, for Barbara becoming Batgirl. But how come did you think her fight with Poison Ivy was misogynistic? Do you reckon it's because the scene objectifies them?
I think Robin's troubled relationship with Batman was resolved by the end. They had to put aside their petty disputes to save the day and realise they had to work together for Alfred and Gotham's sake.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 May 2016, 10:30
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 15:05
It didn't exactly allow Robin to flourish and develop as a character as much as he could have. It seemed to me her only purpose was defeating Ivy but she didn't have to be beaten up, they could have done it in a manner which wasn't misogynistic. I also felt her plotline was mostly a rehash of Dick's from the previous film; believing Bruce had a secret and determined to find out what it was. I'd have preferred if they had barbara but didn't let her become batgirl yet.
You are right about how they copied the same arc, more or less, for Barbara becoming Batgirl. But how come did you think her fight with Poison Ivy was misogynistic? Do you reckon it's because the scene objectifies them?
I think Robin's troubled relationship with Batman was resolved by the end. They had to put aside their petty disputes to save the day and realise they had to work together for Alfred and Gotham's sake.
I think Schumacher was definitely going for a Batman Family quality from the comics. Batgirl's origin was entirely too lean for the kind of universe building Joel was in the midst of doing, but that formula had not yet been worked out like it is these days. I give him props for at least going out there and doing it, so she became part of the Batman film legacy, although not a very kind one at this stage.
Yes that's true. Let's not forget there were complaints from fans over turning Barbara into Alfred's niece instead of Gordon's daughter. But who she was related to wouldn't have made a difference when it came to general fan reception, in my opinion.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 May 2016, 10:51
Yes that's true. Let's not forget there were complaints from fans over turning Barbara into Alfred's niece instead of Gordon's daughter. But who she was related to wouldn't have made a difference when it came to general fan reception, in my opinion.
I agree. I think the biggest issue I had was the ten seconds of film time her cowl received before being evolved into a one piece eye mask. I heard she had gained weight for the added shots that featured her in the cowl, so it no longer fit her properly. I got to believe there was a work around. My inner child would have enjoyed her more had she stayed closer to her comic book roots in appearance.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 4 May 2016, 10:30
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 15:05
It didn't exactly allow Robin to flourish and develop as a character as much as he could have. It seemed to me her only purpose was defeating Ivy but she didn't have to be beaten up, they could have done it in a manner which wasn't misogynistic. I also felt her plotline was mostly a rehash of Dick's from the previous film; believing Bruce had a secret and determined to find out what it was. I'd have preferred if they had barbara but didn't let her become batgirl yet.
You are right about how they copied the same arc, more or less, for Barbara becoming Batgirl. But how come did you think her fight with Poison Ivy was misogynistic? Do you reckon it's because the scene objectifies them?
I think Robin's troubled relationship with Batman was resolved by the end. They had to put aside their petty disputes to save the day and realise they had to work together for Alfred and Gotham's sake.
I don't think there was misogynism what I'm saying is you run that risk whenever you have a male protagonist and female antagonist. For instance had batman or robin kicked her into a plant the way Batgirl did, there'd be complaints. Though they easily could have had batman or robin have her plants defeat her or simply arrest her. I'm not sure the truth to the rumour but I've heard the cancelled third Burton film ended with Keaton kissing Catwoman before hearing the click of handcuffs so Batman could turn her into the police, they could have easily used that idea here.
With respect to Barbara becoming Alfred's niece instead of Gordons, I think that was done to tie her into wayne manor more as Gordon wasn't a big character in these films.
One interesting thing which kind of gets overlooked; at the end of Batman Forever, Batman saves Robin from falling to his death. In this film Robin is again falling to his death but this time saves himself which does nicely resolve the trust element of the film.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 4 May 2016, 14:28
I don't think there was misogynism what I'm saying is you run that risk whenever you have a male protagonist and female antagonist. For instance had batman or robin kicked her into a plant the way Batgirl did, there'd be complaints. Though they easily could have had batman or robin have her plants defeat her or simply arrest her. I'm not sure the truth to the rumour but I've heard the cancelled third Burton film ended with Keaton kissing Catwoman before hearing the click of handcuffs so Batman could turn her into the police, they could have easily used that idea here.
You know, now that I think of it, it could be possible that BR faced criticism over Batman fighting Catwoman, regardless if he was defending himself or not. Him knocking her off the building right after getting clawed in the stomach, and her cheating death thanks to luckily falling into a truck full of cat litter, might've met accusations of sexism from commentators who were already troubled by the sexual undertones and bleak context the movie had.
If this was what critics were saying, then maybe you have a point. It's quite possible Schumacher wanted to save face and that might've been the reason why he chose Batgirl to beat Poison Ivy.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 15 May 2016, 04:49
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 4 May 2016, 14:28
I don't think there was misogynism what I'm saying is you run that risk whenever you have a male protagonist and female antagonist. For instance had batman or robin kicked her into a plant the way Batgirl did, there'd be complaints. Though they easily could have had batman or robin have her plants defeat her or simply arrest her. I'm not sure the truth to the rumour but I've heard the cancelled third Burton film ended with Keaton kissing Catwoman before hearing the click of handcuffs so Batman could turn her into the police, they could have easily used that idea here.
You know, now that I think of it, it could be possible that BR faced criticism over Batman fighting Catwoman, regardless if he was defending himself or not. Him knocking her off the building right after getting clawed in the stomach, and her cheating death thanks to luckily falling into a truck full of cat litter, might've met accusations of sexism from commentators who were already troubled by the sexual undertones and bleak context the movie had.
If this was what critics were saying, then maybe you have a point. It's quite possible Schumacher wanted to save face and that might've been the reason why he chose Batgirl to beat Poison Ivy.
I think from the moment Schumacher decided to have Poison Ivy in the script, Batgirl was in place to play foil to her plans. Schumacher wanted to add a female hero to the Batman theatrical franchise so this was his opening. I do find it odd that Schumacher never explained how Batman could distance himself from the alluring effects of Poison Ivy's gas. I think he should have offered a more feasible response than Batman's own will power or maturity. That sure didn't help Commissioner Gordon in the least. LOL!
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 5 Sep 2017, 13:57
I think from the moment Schumacher decided to have Poison Ivy in the script, Batgirl was in place to play foil to her plans. Schumacher wanted to add a female hero to the Batman theatrical franchise so this was his opening.
Yes, if you're going to go for colourful, whacky villains and cite Adam West as your inspiration, what else is a better time to introduce a sassy Batgirl? Whether one likes it or not, Schumacher did grab a perfect opportunity there.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 5 Sep 2017, 13:57
I do find it odd that Schumacher never explained how Batman could distance himself from the alluring effects of Poison Ivy's gas. I think he should have offered a more feasible response than Batman's own will power or maturity. That sure didn't help Commissioner Gordon in the least. LOL!
On one hand, you could argue that Batman not being affected by Poison Ivy is a perfect example of willpower to overcome obstacles in the comics.
On the other hand, it's definitely a huge oversight by Batman to not share his secret when dealing with Ivy. Definitely would've done a lot of good for Gordon and Robin. ;D
The fact that Commissioner Gordon was willing to turn over the key to the bat signal when under the influence of the Ivy dust implies me to believe that Batman should have had more of an effect. Though maybe he does, as silly as the bidding war ending the Bat credit card are, that scene is important to the plot because Batman and Robin are clearly acting out of character by openly broadcasting they're rich like that in public.
The way I see it, during his first encounter with Ivy, Batman doesn't know she has bad intentions. It's possible that once he sees her as a bad guy, that gives him the willpower to overcome his urges.
I suppose Batman was able to resist because he knew the risks of letting Poison Ivy kiss him. I don't care how, ahem, in the mood a guy might be, nothing is worth that kind of risk.
I think it's the fact Batman knew it was dust she blew in his face, especially upon recalling the situation afterwards. Robin allowed the ecstasy of that mood to envelope him continually, whereas Batman checked himself just in time and didn't become her pawn. Ivy charmed Batman once at the ball, but that was it. Robin didn't care about logic in those moments. He loved that mood and wanted more of it. He perpetuated the lie just as much as Ivy did. He wanted to believe he was Ivy's exclusive lover. It was a big deal for Robin to realize Batman was right and not just a jealous rival.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 6 Sep 2017, 04:29
I suppose Batman was able to resist because he knew the risks of letting Poison Ivy kiss him. I don't care how, ahem, in the mood a guy might be, nothing is worth that kind of risk.
Yeah that's the simplest and easiest explanation. Once Batman (and possibly Robin) knew what the effects of Ivy's dust caused, their sense of reason was restored. Gordon followed his lust because he had no idea he was under a spell.
I thought Robin's portrayal was pretty good in BF but in B&R he was too annoyingly over-the-top. He seems too unreasonable in complaining Batman may never trust him for wanting him to train more after he nearly did get himself killed and in insisting that Batman just wants Poison Ivy for himself when, aside from in the initial auction Batman always seems pretty stoically in-control and not-tempted, also that he's so in love with and trusting of Ivy even though she often seems pretty clearly really evil.
I once suggested that casting a young adult like Chris O'Donnell as Robin might have been conscious choice made by the producers to avoid unwanted criticism of Batman committing child endangerment.
But nowadays, I don't think critics and audiences have a leg to stand on any more because of their overwhelming praise of Spider-Man: Homecoming. In that movie, a teenage Peter Parker continues as Tony Stark's protege and wishes to join the Avengers, but Stark decides to confiscate Peter's suit and even admitted that he couldn't risk Peter getting killed on his conscience. Well, if you stop and think about it for a second, Stark should've thought about that before getting Peter involved in the hunt for Bucky in Civil War; never mind inviting him to join the Avengers. It doesn't help since we're in the Sokovia Accords-era.
If a future Batman film decides to feature a teenage Robin fighting alongside Batman, there better not be any complaints. But considering the constant double standards lots of people have for Batman when it comes to a specific tone and killing people, I won't hold my breath.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Sep 2017, 03:21
I once suggested that casting a young adult like Chris O'Donnell as Robin might have been conscious choice made by the producers to avoid unwanted criticism of Batman committing child endangerment.
But nowadays, I don't think critics and audiences have a leg to stand on any more because of their overwhelming praise of Spider-Man: Homecoming. In that movie, a teenage Peter Parker continues as Tony Stark's protege and wishes to join the Avengers, but Stark decides to confiscate Peter's suit and even admitted that he couldn't risk Peter getting killed on his conscience. Well, if you stop and think about it for a second, Stark should've thought about that before getting Peter involved in the hunt for Bucky in Civil War; never mind inviting him to join the Avengers. It doesn't help since we're in the Sokovia Accords-era.
If a future Batman film decides to feature a teenage Robin fighting alongside Batman, there better not be any complaints. But considering the constant double standards lots of people have for Batman when it comes to a specific tone and killing people, I won't hold my breath.
We're in a different age now with the internet. Soccer moms complaining about what they see in movies is a thing of the past. With the internet having websites dedicated to parental suggestions in movies and technology allowing for parental restriction, the onus is on the parents to ensure their children are watching appropriate content, not the film makers any more. The child in the Jungle Book encountered some dangerous situations without facing much backlash.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 16 Sep 2017, 15:04
We're in a different age now with the internet. Soccer moms complaining about what they see in movies is a thing of the past. With the internet having websites dedicated to parental suggestions in movies and technology allowing for parental restriction, the onus is on the parents to ensure their children are watching appropriate content, not the film makers any more. The child in the Jungle Book encountered some dangerous situations without facing much backlash.
You're right about that, parents have no excuse to be ignorant of the content in these sorts of movies. If they're taken by surprise of something that's a lot more violent than they expected, it's their fault for not paying attention to the available resources.
But for the media, it's a different matter. I've seen some opinionated bloggers on YouTube having certain standards of what would break a film for them. For example, John Campea once made a big deal if Robin had appeared in BvS and said he'd refuse to see the film, because according to him, having a child sidekick would make Batman irresponsible. Yet, would you believe it, he was perfectly happy with Spider-Man serving as Iron Man's protege in the MCU.
Blogs and geek sites have no credibility, in my eyes.
A child actor wouldn't have worked in Batman Forever because of things O' Donnell does which a 12 year old character wouldn't be able to do;
-have the option to run off and live on his own instead of staying with Bruce.
-street race around Gotham rather adeptly on a motorbike
-joyride with the Batmobile.
-operate the Bat-sub
-be able to run off on his own after Bruce gets shot
Likewise Batman and Robin wouldn't have gotten away with it. The partnership in peril aspect which gets criticized enough as it is would be an extra level of silly if Dick were still a child as would him fighting over Ivy.
I think spider-man homecoming got it right; cast a 20 year old actor and put him in high school. 15-16 is about the right age for the Dick Grayson character should the DCEU portray him as Robin.
I think casting Robin too young would have also brought up an issue regarding the appropriateness of a kid being placed in harms way or being too young to make those kinds of decisions. Then you would also get into the whole father/adopted son versus what constitutes a partner at that age argument. And the list goes on from there. I think having Robin at consenting age was correct.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 20 Sep 2017, 15:07A child actor wouldn't have worked in Batman Forever because of things O' Donnell does which a 12 year old character wouldn't be able to do;
-have the option to run off and live on his own instead of staying with Bruce.
-street race around Gotham rather adeptly on a motorbike
-joyride with the Batmobile.
-operate the Bat-sub
-be able to run off on his own after Bruce gets shot
Likewise Batman and Robin wouldn't have gotten away with it. The partnership in peril aspect which gets criticized enough as it is would be an extra level of silly if Dick were still a child as would him fighting over Ivy.
I think spider-man homecoming got it right; cast a 20 year old actor and put him in high school. 15-16 is about the right age for the Dick Grayson character should the DCEU portray him as Robin.
The logical counterpoint to those things (all of which are true) is that the writers should craft a story that supports a 12-year old Robin and a 30'ish Batman. Fighting over Poison Ivy isn't it, obviously, but other conflicts could work.
To go in another direction, this kind of silly notion of Dick becoming Nightwing in BR is mystifying to me. The whole premise of BR is that Batman and Robin are becoming a team. Their challenge in BF was merely accepting the proposition of being partners. Their challenge in BF is
actually becoming partners. And, in the process, they're becoming family too.
One thing I dig about BR is how Dick obviously redesigned his outfit after the events of BF. He clearly wanted to put his own stamp onto his alter ego. He was happy to use the BF outfit in BF. But after that, he wanted something sleeker and (forgive me) sexier. He's still Robin. But now he's his own conception of Robin instead of Alfred's conception of Robin.
Alfred said that Dick is following his own path and we see visual evidence of that in BR. He's fine with the "Robin" moniker as a tribute to his dead family. But he's not defined solely by that. And while the new outfit in BR is obviously intended to sell toys rather than offer commentary on the character, the new outfit still does inform the audience's understanding of how this character is growing and maturing.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 01:54
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 20 Sep 2017, 15:07A child actor wouldn't have worked in Batman Forever because of things O' Donnell does which a 12 year old character wouldn't be able to do;
-have the option to run off and live on his own instead of staying with Bruce.
-street race around Gotham rather adeptly on a motorbike
-joyride with the Batmobile.
-operate the Bat-sub
-be able to run off on his own after Bruce gets shot
Likewise Batman and Robin wouldn't have gotten away with it. The partnership in peril aspect which gets criticized enough as it is would be an extra level of silly if Dick were still a child as would him fighting over Ivy.
I think spider-man homecoming got it right; cast a 20 year old actor and put him in high school. 15-16 is about the right age for the Dick Grayson character should the DCEU portray him as Robin.
The logical counterpoint to those things (all of which are true) is that the writers should craft a story that supports a 12-year old Robin and a 30'ish Batman. Fighting over Poison Ivy isn't it, obviously, but other conflicts could work.
To go in another direction, this kind of silly notion of Dick becoming Nightwing in BR is mystifying to me. The whole premise of BR is that Batman and Robin are becoming a team. Their challenge in BF was merely accepting the proposition of being partners. Their challenge in BF is actually becoming partners. And, in the process, they're becoming family too.
One thing I dig about BR is how Dick obviously redesigned his outfit after the events of BF. He clearly wanted to put his own stamp onto his alter ego. He was happy to use the BF outfit in BF. But after that, he wanted something sleeker and (forgive me) sexier. He's still Robin. But now he's his own conception of Robin instead of Alfred's conception of Robin.
Alfred said that Dick is following his own path and we see visual evidence of that in BR. He's fine with the "Robin" moniker as a tribute to his dead family. But he's not defined solely by that. And while the new outfit in BR is obviously intended to sell toys rather than offer commentary on the character, the new outfit still does inform the audience's understanding of how this character is growing and maturing.
I guess you could come up with new plot lines for a young Robin.You'd be pretty much shoehorned into orphan Bruce becoming a father figure as a plot line. Burt Ward was 21 when he started his run as Robin, only 3 years younger than O' Donnell was in 1994.
I've believed from what I've read on the subject that Dick would have become Nightwing in the fifth film as in his two suits basically transition him more to Nightwing's suit; first the Nightwing patterned suit and mask with Robin colours and then the second with silver colours (closer to Nightwing's blue). That being said I haven't thought about how the plot of Batman and Robin transitions him into Nightwing. He considers going solo and even tries it during the film. Him coming through in the end without Batman's help may have been where the arc turns sharply.
Don't forget, all but one Bat suit was destroyed by the end of Batman Forever so between films, Dick would have been on hand while new Batsuits were being built and possibly also played a hand in it. The Robin suit in Forever was likely rushed and either way was only a first draft.
It is interesting how despite having similar backstories, Bruce and Dicks paths differ. Bruce carries on his family name and legacy all along after they die. It may be due to crime fighting at an early age but Dick grows out of his families shadow and into Bruces before growing into his own. So basically what we see on screen is a suit completely embracing the flying Graysons followed by one with a different design but the colours intact before a final suit which looks nothing like the first. Also note that this is the film in which both Bruce and Dick no longer mourn their families death The difference is that Dick does it far quicker than Bruce.
Quote from: riddler on Wed, 20 Sep 2017, 15:07
A child actor wouldn't have worked in Batman Forever because of things O' Donnell does which a 12 year old character wouldn't be able to do
I absolutely agree. But when I said "child", I was referring to 15-16. I come from a place where nobody is legally an adult till they turn 18.
Quote from: riddler on Thu, 21 Sep 2017, 04:55
It is interesting how despite having similar backstories, Bruce and Dicks paths differ. Bruce carries on his family name and legacy all along after they die. It may be due to crime fighting at an early age but Dick grows out of his families shadow and into Bruces before growing into his own. So basically what we see on screen is a suit completely embracing the flying Graysons followed by one with a different design but the colours intact before a final suit which looks nothing like the first. Also note that this is the film in which both Bruce and Dick no longer mourn their families death The difference is that Dick does it far quicker than Bruce.
Precisely. We must acknowledge that while both the Waynes and Graysons murders were tragic, the pain was much more profound for Bruce because he witnessed his parents' demise at such a young age. All of his childhood innocence was lost following that moment, and right till the end of Batman Forever, Bruce grew up emotionally stunted with his inability to move on with life. Batman was his only outlet.
For Dick, the trauma for him was real, but he had it easier to bounce back. He was much older when he lost his parents, he was much more street smart and aware of how unfair the world is, and he knew he could on Bruce and Alfred for support despite his rebellious attitude.
Once Bruce makes peace with his guilt over his parents and spares Dick from that destructive path towards vengeance, they healed. In the end of B&R, saving Alfred's life and having Barbara entering the fray alleviated both of them of loneliness and found a new family going forward.