Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This a question that I've wondered about for a while. What with all of the Comic book characters getting revised in the movies, "Why are so many dead set against the idea of a female Robin?".

I understand the established back story argument, but then it could be argued that the back story is out dated. It just seems that DC could drop the outdated Bat"Girl" concept and run a story arc where the Robin character is female.

I know it has been done in the Comics but why not on the big screen?

Yes, I'm making an argument for but want to hear/read what my fellow Dakkites think.


Later,
ff

Edit for spacing

I see two immediate problems.

1) Transforming male characters into female ones for the sake of gender equality is lazy
2) Constantly regulating female heroines to secondary or sidekick roles is inherently sexist

Because, for some unknown reason, changing a character's gender is infinitely worse than all of the other changes they make every time they re-launch a brand.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because, for some unknown reason, changing a character's gender is infinitely worse than all of the other changes they make every time they re-launch a brand.

WTF are you even on right now?

Considering Robin is more an honorific (there have been 5 in the standard continuity*) it isn't that out of the realm for a female Robin, since one of the five was female already. Also, Carrie Kelly...a female...was Robin in The Dark Knight Returns.


*Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tinm Drake, Stephanie Brown, and Damien Wayne

Honestly, I think the bigger issue is that sidekicks tend to be fairly problematic in movie roles to be honest.

Both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were very silly movies, and the presence of Robin as the sidekick was far from the only reason why, but it was part of the issue. The take in the last of Nolan's films with Robin shown as a successor was an interesting take.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because, for some unknown reason, changing a character's gender is infinitely worse than all of the other changes they make every time they re-launch a brand.

WTF are you even on right now?

Remember the recent Thor "controversy"?

Thor comics re-launched with a woman as the hero.
OMG YOU CANT DO THAT THOR IS A MAN!!!!!
But he's just lost his power, and the hammer goes to another character just like we've done several times before. The original guy is still around.
BUT ITS A WOMAN!!!!!1! EVERYTHING IS RUINED TUMBLER FEMINISTS@!@!@@!!!!

It's ok to kill off a character (or even the whole setting!) and respawn them for a "new" series as if the previous events never happened, but somehow making them anything other than a straight white guy is just too much to tolerate.

trexmeyer wrote:I see two immediate problems.

1) Transforming male characters into female ones for the sake of gender equality is lazy
2) Constantly regulating female heroines to secondary or sidekick roles is inherently sexist

Please explain your position further. What I mean is:

On you first point you said it would be lazy to make the change from a sexist character scheme for the purpose of gender equality.
Are you saying that it would be less lazy to leave the pld sexist system in place?
If so, "When would it not be lazy to remove the Bat"girl" character?".

On your point that it would be sexist. Why is it sexist to have a female novice trained by a male expert?
If there are no strong female heroes in the city, "Where does she go to get the needed training?".

sebster wrote:Honestly, I think the bigger issue is that sidekicks tend to be fairly problematic in movie roles to be honest.

Both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were very silly movies, and the presence of Robin as the sidekick was far from the only reason why, but it was part of the issue. The take in the last of Nolan's films with Robin shown as a successor was an interesting take.

I get what you are saying but would posit that this is more of a DC character portrayal issue.

The movie Kick Ass ran a very Batman-esque Big Daddy with a young female Night Wing equivalent in Hit Girl. While some may not like the movie I found the concept of a damaged sociopath as a young student interesting.

The thought of such a treatment on Robin could, imo, be as dark and compelling as Ledger's Joker if written and casted correctly.


Thanks for the replies,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:
The movie Kick Ass ran a very Batman-esque Big Daddy with a young female Night Wing equivalent in Hit Girl. While some may not like the movie I found the concept of a damaged sociopath as a young student interesting.

The thought of such a treatment on Robin could, imo, be as dark and compelling as Ledger's Joker if written and casted correctly.

Huh, I hadn't thought of Kick Ass as the template for a sidekick relationship. That's a really interesting take on the idea. Consider my opinion on the matter changed - if well written (and it would have to be very well written and likely the focus of the movie) then I could see a sidekick relationship working well.

Cheers.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I see two immediate problems.

1) Transforming male characters into female ones for the sake of gender equality is lazy
2) Constantly regulating female heroines to secondary or sidekick roles is inherently sexist

I've bolded the part if the argument that I find to be really fricking annoying. Not every change that's related to gender is due to gender equality. I know it's a shocking concept, but having a female character take up the mantle of a character for a while (for example) might, somehow, open up new storytelling opportunities.

I'd add that there's already precedent for a female Robin, with the existence of Stephanie Brown Carrie Kelly in TDKR, so I'd be absolutely fine with this.

 Goliath wrote:
I'd add that there's already precedent for a female Robin, with the existence of Stephanie Brown in TDKR, so I'd be absolutely fine with this.

Carrie Kelly was Robin in TDKR. Stephanie Brown was Robin (and later Batgirl then Spoiler) in the normal continuity.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
I'd add that there's already precedent for a female Robin, with the existence of Stephanie Brown in TDKR, so I'd be absolutely fine with this.

Carrie Kelly was Robin in TDKR. Stephanie Brown was Robin (and later Batgirl then Spoiler) in the normal continuity.

ah, my mistake. I haven't yet read TDKR, and seemed to remember people commenting on an image from it (when it was shown as an inspiration for Batman v superman) explaining that the Robin that looked like a girl was. Stephanie Brown. I shall amend my comment.

Though the fact that I was able to get the wrong female Robin only strengthens my point that there's precedent.

 focusedfire wrote:
I understand the established back story argument, but then it could be argued that the back story is out dated. It just seems that DC could drop the outdated Bat"Girl" concept and run a story arc where the Robin character is female.

Bat"girl" is Batgirl because there's already a Batwoman.

And a character's gender should serve the story, not be inserted/changed to fit some stupid agenda, to tick a box on an imaginary quota, not to create some artificial "diversity". Diversity for diversity's sake is tokenism.

Ultimately what sex Robin is doesn't matter. What matters is the character. Dick Greyson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake and Damien Wayne all have a place in the story. So does Carrie Kelly and Stephanie Brown. Characterisation and story trump gender.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
I understand the established back story argument, but then it could be argued that the back story is out dated. It just seems that DC could drop the outdated Bat"Girl" concept and run a story arc where the Robin character is female.

Bat"girl" is Batgirl because there's already a Batwoman.

And a character's gender should serve the story, not be inserted/changed to fit some stupid agenda, to tick a box on an imaginary quota, not to create some artificial "diversity". Diversity for diversity's sake is tokenism.

Ultimately what sex Robin is doesn't matter. What matters is the character. Dick Greyson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake and Damien Wayne all have a place in the story. So does Carrie Kelly and Stephanie Brown. Characterisation and story trump gender.

Basically this. If there's a good reason, by all means. If not, don't bother.

I thought they handled it well in TDK, with Robin being a normal guy but still helping out Batman. The end where he finds the cave was also good.

Obviously some of you don't read comics. There have been two female Robins. One of the comics even had a cartoon adaptation, which followed the comic perfectly. So those arguing about "gender switching" characters are being ignorant asshats.

One other thing to consider is this:

Is there really any reason for Robin to be male in the first place?

I could possibly see that he was male because an "old male, young female" relationship might have been considered strange (the Bruce/Dick relationship, not the Batman/Robin version).

But other than that, is there really any special purpose served by having Robin be a male other than "it's always been that way"?

Because if Robin's gender really doesn't matter, then there is no reason not to cast the role based on whoever would do the best job.

Not every role has to be cast for a specific gender/race/whatever for any particular reason. It's okay to switch it up if you think that an actress might bring something special to the character: a special dynamic, just a good portrayal of the character, etc. Hiring a woman for the role doesn't have to be done just for the sole purpose of hiring a woman.

Historically every movie with a Robin has bombed. Its kind of a sign that the franchise is swirling the drain. " Holy Gee Willickers Batman it looks like our weekend take took it in the poopchute!"

Go for it.

Robin is not a woman. Please just stick with the formula that works: gay Batman, gay Robin.

 Frazzled wrote:
Historically every movie with a Robin has bombed. Its kind of a sign that the franchise is swirling the drain. " Holy Gee Willickers Batman it looks like our weekend take took it in the poopchute!"

Go for it.

Not ALL of them.

 d-usa wrote:
One other thing to consider is this:

Is there really any reason for Robin to be male in the first place?

I could possibly see that he was male because an "old male, young female" relationship might have been considered strange (the Bruce/Dick relationship, not the Batman/Robin version).

But other than that, is there really any special purpose served by having Robin be a male other than "it's always been that way"?

Because if Robin's gender really doesn't matter, then there is no reason not to cast the role based on whoever would do the best job.

Not every role has to be cast for a specific gender/race/whatever for any particular reason. It's okay to switch it up if you think that an actress might bring something special to the character: a special dynamic, just a good portrayal of the character, etc. Hiring a woman for the role doesn't have to be done just for the sole purpose of hiring a woman.

Case in point: Ripley in the Alien franchise was originally written as a man.

One movie that comes to mind when talking about "casting x/y/z for no apparent reason other than being a good fit for the role" is Run Fatboy Run.

Thandie Newton and Harish Patel were good in their roles, but they didn't seem like "we need more minorities in this movie" type castings. They seemed pretty natural in the movie and I didn't question their inclusion at all.

I've no problem with swapping the gender (or any other characteristic) of a Superhero because the Superhero is ultimately a job title and it can be occupied by various people. 'Robin' does not posses any gender or racial characteristics, they belong the person who occupies the role of Robin. It is Dick Grayson who is the white male, not Robin. You can introduce another character who isn't a white male to take over the role of 'Robin'. That's not a problem.

Thor is another matter however, Thor isn't an alter ego that can be passed on. It's unique to the individual Thor son of Odin. He can't become a woman any more than Bruce Wayne could (without surgery anyway).

It's a bit like when people start demanding a black James Bond, it's just silly.

 LuciusAR wrote:

Thor is another matter however, Thor isn't an alter ego that can be passed on. It's unique to the individual Thor son of Odin. He can't become a woman any more than Bruce Wayne could (without surgery anyway).

This has been addressed repeatedly in the Thor thread

 d-usa wrote:
But other than that, is there really any special purpose served by having Robin be a male other than "it's always been that way"?

Except that it hasn't. Stephanie Brown. Carrie Kelly. Neither of them are guys.

If you have a female Robin, she's Robin because of the story given to her. She's not Robin because you took an existing male one and gender-swapped him.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But other than that, is there really any special purpose served by having Robin be a male other than "it's always been that way"?

Except that it hasn't. Stephanie Brown. Carrie Kelly. Neither of them are guys.

I was talking about the movies

If you have a female Robin, she's Robin because of the story given to her. She's not Robin because you took an existing male one and gender-swapped him.

What if Robin is currently in the process of transitioning from male to female in the story?

Wait, you mean Robin has pretty much always been a dude??? I always thought Robin was some 12 year old girl who looked more like boys

 d-usa wrote:
I was talking about the movies

The medium matters?

 d-usa wrote:
What if Robin is currently in the process of transitioning from male to female in the story?

Now you're just being difficult.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I was talking about the movies

The medium matters?

*looks up at the thread title*

Considering that we are talking about a "movie", yes.

Wondering if "just because Robin has always been male" is a good enough reason for not casting a female Robin is perfectly legitimate when you are talking about the movies and acknowledge the fact that in every other movie Robin has, in fact, been male. It doesn't take anything away from the comics.

Reasons for keeping Robin male in the movies:
- Every other movie Robin has been male (which I questioned as being legitimate).
- Other reasons

Reasons for having a female Robin in the movies:
- It's been done in the comics
- Other reasons.

 d-usa wrote:
What if Robin is currently in the process of transitioning from male to female in the story?

Now you're just being difficult.

Their struggle is real!

 Frazzled wrote:
Historically every movie with a Robin has bombed. Its kind of a sign that the franchise is swirling the drain. " Holy Gee Willickers Batman it looks like our weekend take took it in the poopchute!"

Go for it.

Not exactly......







A gender does not matter to the story. If a character changes sex thats kind of err.. Why? Can the other sex tell a different story? what is the point of it?

I mean there are sometimes where it fits into the story. Where for example in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow a very powerful witch gets transformed into the person she killed (she skinned him) and she turned into a man. This served the plot as it gave us an idea of what Willow was going through after another characters death. That serves the plot. Turning someone into another gender just because is something completely different.

I mean gender really does not matter in the long run. I mean what would happen if Merlin turned out to be a chick? nothing really. If you make that change you will be seen as inherently trying to pander to a female audience, which does not garner viewership. What garners viewer ship are interesting characters and plot lines, and to entertain.

In a weird way I don't see why a female Robin wouldn't work on the big screen. The only argument against it in my mind is the 'traditional backstory' thing about the Robins coming in the right order but that stems from being a Grayson and Todd fan. Whether that would be reflected by wider movie goers is debatable, how many of them would be confused by a female Robin instead of a male one?

However, I feel the take on batman in the upcoming Batman v Superman: dawn of Justice (Or whatever the title is) might be a way around this. from what I gather this version of Batman is meant to be older and already established, no origin story needed. If this is the case, could we not already have an established Robin? Or Nightwing if he is really well established. In my mind this allows the movie makers to say "oh we had a male Robin, but he's grown up now' and develop some of the story around the female Robin to be the difficulties Batman has training a new Robin instead of a generic sidekick origin. Although, having said that I don't see the issue with having a Batgirl with no Robin instead

In an ideal world there would be the Jason Todd being dead backstory too, but that might just confuse people too much if they are casual film goers. Still, just my 2 cents