For the first time since I started watching AMC Movie talk, I found myself put off by John Campea. Like many others, it was due to his firm opinions regarding the rumored inclusion of Nightwing in the Batman VS Superman movie. John’s assertion that this inclusion equals no possible positive outcome on the movie is one that I take issue with. John Campea’s youtube show is AWESOME, and rightfully has a huge following. He’s usually bang on, but on this subject, he’s being closed-minded and inconsistent with his own movie philosophies. My fear is that since he has such a huge following, he could be spreading this close-mindedness to the detriment of movie fans who might just be taking this opinion as more sound than it is. So here’s a counter view.
John’s argument essentially breaks down as follows. The essence of the Dick Grayson character is sacrificed if Dick isn’t established as fighting crime as a 14-year-old Robin, which would make Batman a “super-douche”. It then becomes a false dilemma in which Batman is either a “super-douche” or Dick Grayson isn’t really Dick Grayson.
The most important aspect of this issue is an understanding of what makes the Dick Grayson character so special and enduring. John’s reasoning suggests that Dick’s age, 14 or younger specifically, is as important as any other quality. He sees no genuine interpretation in raising Dick’s initial crime fighting age to allow for a more realistic version. To John, he’s either a child crime fighter in a universe where that doesn’t make sense, or a full-grown man who isn’t a true interpretation. To John, there’s no middle ground.
Is there really no middle ground though? What really is the essence of who Dick Grayson is? He lost his parents in a similar fashion as Bruce. Bruce sees part of himself in Dick and takes him in to be his apprentice. Dick is extraordinarily physically gifted, well trained and determined, even before he meets Bruce. Dick is young and impressionable at the time he meets Bruce. I’m sure I’m missing a thing or two, but if they included only those qualities, they’d have a pretty accurate interpretation of Dick Grayson.
Notice that I didn’t put a specific age on Dick. That’s because it really doesn’t need to be that specific to be a true interpretation. He just needs to be young and impressionable. Comics visually overemphasize qualities in characters to make the story more visceral. Their movie adaptations routinely reduce these qualities to ad an element of believability and realism that’s more natural to the medium. In the comics, Robin is an early teen, who’s made to look more like a 7 yr old to hit the point home that he’s young. That doesn’t mean he needs to be a little kid in the movie. Why not just no older than 20?
The movie medium requires far less reliance on the visual qualities of the character to convey who that character is. Consequently, Dick can be 16-20 yrs old, while still being a genuine interpretation. It’s far more important how Dick acts, and how he relates to Bruce, than what his specific age is. More precisely, Dick’s maturity is what truly matters, not his age.
I suppose some, including John, might say that taking a 20 year old out crime fighting is still a terrible thing to do. As John would say, it’s certainly illegal and therefore not something Batman would do. Since when does Batman care about what’s legal? Crime fighting at any age is illegal! Part of the core of Batman is that he works outside of the system and cares for his interpretation of morality over societies’ legality. To Batman, there’s nothing wrong with taking a well-prepared youth out crime fighting. Batman’s supposed to be a little crazy…
Some might say that 20 is still clearly too immoral... How? Doesn’t America have a long lasting tradition of allowing less prepared 17 year olds fight in wars!? Why can’t a 17 year old who’s supposed to be extraordinarily gifted, well-trained and technologically enhanced fight street crime?
I suppose it could be argued that a 17 year old kid couldn’t possibly have the physical tools capable of fighting most full grown men. That argument is ridiculous. 18 year olds routinely compete at the highest athletic levels and thrive. Why can’t we push that to 16 or 17 for a comic book movie? We don’t seem to have a problem with Anne Hatheway right crossing trained terrorists the f%#$ out?
I’m definitely not trying to come off as genderist, but let’s call a spade a spade. 17 year old males possess the same physical fighting abilities as fully matured females. Now before you start spouting off about Ronda Rousey, ask yourself if you truly think that a 17-year-old Jon Jones couldn’t have handled himself against Ronda. That’s probably true of the 17 yr old versions of most of the top 5 fighters in any weight class.
In summary, I think it’s important that audiences are open to the possibility of a genuine interpretation of the Dick Grayson character. He’s a great character, and more importantly a meaningful one for exploring the Batman mythos (arguably 2nd to the Joker). Personally I like the possibility of exploring the entire Bat-Family at some point. I don’t think it should happen now, but I want each Batman story to be as different as possible from the last. So, let’s be open to possibility at least…
RELATED CONTENT:
Micro-News: DC Comics Movie Adaptations
DC All Access Episode 5 - Zack Snyder And Kevin Smith
Watch The MAN OF STEEL Q&A With Zack Snyder And Kevin Smith