Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
"steph isn’t a part of the batfam cause bruce never adopted her" well he never adopted babs either it’s called the bat family not the wayne family sit the fuck down
I think of them as two separate entities.
The Wayne kids: Dick, Jason, Tim, Cass, and Damian.
The Batkids: Same as above, but adding Babs and Steph.
And then you have the extended Batfamily, which also includes Kate Kane, Helena Bertinelli, Azrael (take your pick which) and others.
Reblog if you would watch a Cassandra Cain movie.
some people think bruce is a terrible person for taking young boys and putting them in danger just to use them like his personal soldiers and that he was adult, therefore he shouldn't give to the children's whimps....I'm curiuos what will be your answer to that?
I do think there’s some truth to that, actually. He’s taking children as young as eight in some continuities (Dick was eight when he became Robin in the original canon) and taking them out to fight some of the most dangerous and evil criminals in the world. That’s iffy at best and criminally irresponsible at worst. The fact that he’s now lost three of the five mainverse Robins speaks to the truth of that, I think. I may not like DC’s decision to kill off those characters, but I can’t really argue that it’s unrealistic. (Of course, realistically Bruce would probably have died a hundred times over, too.) Even with the ones who survived, there were close calls - Two-Face nearly beat Dick to death when Dick was thirteen, for example (as told in Robin #0 of Tim’s series and Robin: Year One).
So how do you explain Bruce taking a risk like that with a child’s life without making him look like an awful person? To me, the best explanation is either (1) that he saw they were going to do it anyway, with or without his approval, and realized that in that case the best thing he could do would be to train them and keep them under his wing to give them their best chance of survival, or (2) he saw something in them that made him believe that, if they weren’t given crimefighting as an outlet, they would go down a worse path. These two explanations can also be combined. (And, of course, these are only general explanations - there were more specific factors at play for each of the Robins/Batgirls, but I’m not gonna go through that here.)
At the end of the day, it is hard to justify, though, and suspension of disbelief is really necessary - especially to explain why Bruce kept taking on Robins after Jason died. (“Batman needs a Robin” is all very well, but is that really justification for endangering a child’s life? What about what the child needs?) There’s never gonna be an explanation which makes perfect sense, there are only explanations which make more sense (and make Bruce look less irresponsible) than others.
Page 1 of 59