Because Rocksteady wanted to move on to other characters (e.g. Superman, a project which ended up getting scrapped for whatever reason), while WB Games also scrapped 2-3 Batman-related projects before making Gotham Knights.
>So you can blame WB Games' incompetence.
This. Seriously give me access to their IP's and freedom to shop it to devs and I could make them a billion fricking dollary doos.
Yeah I can't see incel Bruce Wayne carrying another movie. It was fine the 1st time for novelty's sake. It would be easier to do if the next movie has a bit of a timeskip
Yeah I'm sure they will. I'm hoping that, since Riddler was finally able to escape being banned from Batman movies and done justice, we can finally get a Dick Grayson/Robin as well, because we're long overdue for that
I dunno about that. I don't really see this series heading in that direction yet. Bruce can barely take care of himself, you expect him to keep a kid from getting killed in the same line of work?
Also, I kinda feel like it's very difficult to actually bring Robin into the picture without making him the protagonist. Batman Forever's handling of Robin was very poor. Like you have three hours to showcase how Bruce and this kid meet while also trying to justify Bruce letting the kid become a vigilante. Plus I can't imagine test audience being very receptive to the sight of a twelve-year-old in armor jumping around and beating up a dozen men twice his size. It's the entire reason Dick Grayson was played by a man closer to his 30s in the Schumacher films.
They did something really smart with Twilightman by making it a year two story.
For characters like Batman, Superman, Spiderman they've reached a point of cultural osmosis that there's no reason to do an "origin" story for them unless you have a really specific vision.
With batman they surprisingly dodged that bullet since the 89 where he's already established.
It wasn't until Nolan that we got anything close to an origin story, and honestly the best parts of Begins are all the year one inspired stuff (which is still my favorite batman story). Once it turns into supervillain wants to spray gas on the city I just check out.
My favorite part about the newest batman is that it is very well grounded, and it has batman running around trying to shut down corruption.
1 year ago
Anonymous
But he's still a costumed vigilante. The entire point of dressing up like a bat and using grappling hooks and shit kinda just boils down to beating up the villain. Getting annoyed at superheroes fighting supervillains is a moronic sentiment. There's no reason to dress up as a bat if he's not dealing with similarly outlandish threats. Supervillains justify superheroes. Without supervillains, superheroes are just vigilantes with excessive power and resources.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>There's no reason to dress up as a bat if he's not dealing with similarly outlandish threats.
Riddler being a livestreaming doomer terrorist with a small social following was a contemporary way of making it pretty outlandish. Lots of civilians point & laugh at the Batsuit, cause wtf is that guy doing lol
1 year ago
Anonymous
But that has its limits. Again, the grappling hook, the armor, all of this shit has to be justified at some point. If Batman does not have threats like the Joker or Mr. Freeze to fight, then you inevitably reach a point where the legitimacy of the Batman becomes questionable. If Superman didn't have enemies like Luthor or Darkseid, then he just becomes an overpowered bully dunking on people who can't do anything to him. If Spider-Man didn't have the Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus, then all of Jameson's criticisms become wholly legitimate.
In order to justify the excessive power and resources at their disposal, superheroes need larger than life threats. If a Batman existed in the city of Detroit with the same resources and competence, then he's not a hero. He's just a jackass taking the law into his own hands, except he has the power and ability to actually get somewhere. And that's a scary concept.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The point of the costume is to strike fear in the criminal element.
Go read year one, he tries to do the same job in a ski mask and it doesn't work because people just see a guy in a ski mask.
As soon as he gets the cape and the cowl he becomes the boogeyman of gotham and people describe him like he's a supernatural entity.
He's a street level hero first and foremost and his best stories and arcs are stretching that to the limit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
He very quickly left the "street level" less than a year into his publications. Batman has been a "street level" hero for less than 10% of his 80 year publication history.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>and it has batman running around trying to shut down corruption.
Seeing him go from Batman to Bruce riding a motorcycle is both so cool and seamless. Dude still has the makeup on. The batwing scene is my favorite part cause of how hilarious it looked
I'd say the happy medium is to have Dick be a teenager then, like 15/16. Still nimble and still trained to be a great fighter and acrobat
1 year ago
Anonymous
There's still the ethics issue. Originally, Robin was created as a self-insert character for kids, because that's who these Golden Age comics were made for. But these films and games are made for older audiences, and thus things can't be quite the same. If your goal is to keep the audience's sympathies with Batman as is the case with the Reeves film, then incorporating Robin becomes much more difficult. You have to go out of your way to truly justify Bruce allowing a minor to become his partner. On some level, you may have to take the choice completely out of his hands. And that's difficult to balance. Worst case scenario, if you make it impossible for Bruce to prevent the birth of Robin, then you run the risk of making Robin an unlikable character.
Of course, the issue becomes a lot easier if you remove audience sympathy for the Batman character from the equation. If you don't mind the audience seeing Bruce as a morally questionable individual who indoctrinates child soldiers, then it's very easy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I guess that's true, but I'm sure they could find some way to make it work. I think stuff like the DCAU did it well where each person felt like they could contribute but Bruce didn't force them into it and sometimes even prevented them from doing it.
I always just figured that the reason Robin isn't used in movies was because DC is still stuck in the 60s with a good chunk of their heroes (the Aquaman talks to fish joke even made it into an official movie for example) and most of the time when they have Robin it's just poking fun at the Burt Ward version (despite him by default being the best incarnation of the character in live action). It sucks because as someone who grew up with a show like Teen Titans, where he was cool as shit, I can't see him in the live action movies because DC has zero respect for most of their characters except Batman and Joker.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's more because the Robin character presents a number of challenges that most directors and writers don't tend to be all that interested in taking on. He presents challenges in terms of action choreography as well as character writing. Also, he's inevitably gonna hog a ton of the spotlight, because you can't just make him a secondary character like a lot of Batman films tended to do. Prior to the Reeves film, most Batman films tended to prioritize the villains more than Batman himself. Burton and Schumacher both didn't seem to have much interest in Bruce Wayne, and even Nolan had the antagonists largely steal the show in the latter two films. Most directors and writers don't want to bring in Robin because that would take focus away from the Joker, from the Penguin, Catwoman, etc., etc. And when signing on to make a Batman film, generally, a coming of age story is not really what these people tend to be interested in writing, which is what any Robin story is inevitably gonna be.
If you're making a Batman film that introduces Robin, you're more or less committing to making a Robin film. And if you don't commit to that, then you get Batman Forever. Batman Forever has numerous flaws, but as far as Robin's concerned, the film isn't really all that interested in him. We never even get a proper explanation for why Bruce is taking this 20-year-old in. I get that his family died, but people aren't prone to adopting legal adults. It just kinda happens because the story needs it to happen and it's not focused on. Also, despite Bruce's strong reluctance to let Dick become Robin throughout most of the film, by the end he just kinda shows up in a new costume and Bruce relents because, whatever, Riddler blew up his cave so who even cares anymore. The film didn't focus enough on the Robin character and as a result, it's a very dissatisfying story. If you want to incorporate Robin, you kinda have to have him take center stage.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Also, I'm not sure if you guys have noticed, but a lot of millennials and zoomers tend to resent youth.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>a lot of millennials and zoomers tend to resent youth.
Anon eventually you get old enough to understand the phrase "youth is wasted on the young." Because you have all the time in the world and nothing worthwhile to do. Then when you get old enough to have shit that needs to get done all you want to do is go to bed.
I don't think you can just transition the Bruce in that film into a playboy. He can barely even make eye contact with people when not wearing the mask. Rather than immediately transition him into a playboy, the second film should place some emphasis on how Bruce is gonna tackle his civilian identity. The first film was about Bruce realizing what kind of Batman he wants to be, while also realizing that his neglect of his civilian identity has contributed to Gotham's issues. So the second film should be partially about Bruce figuring out how he's gonna do things.
Given that Gotham's been flooded, I think a big element of his character arc is becoming more of a man of the people, using his wealth to help the city during this crisis. He starts coming under the limelight more, and he has to learn how to deal with that since up to that point, he was a total recluse. Being Bruce Wayne is inevitably gonna bring more stress to this character than being Batman.
I can see that happening. I'm all for Batman having an arc since most Batman movies haven't really done that with LEGO Batman and Reeves being the most notable examples
Yeah I can't see incel Bruce Wayne carrying another movie. It was fine the 1st time for novelty's sake. It would be easier to do if the next movie has a bit of a timeskip
Yeah, he was a good Batman but a shitty Bruce Wayne, hope that's corrected for the next movie.
I don't think you can just transition the Bruce in that film into a playboy. He can barely even make eye contact with people when not wearing the mask. Rather than immediately transition him into a playboy, the second film should place some emphasis on how Bruce is gonna tackle his civilian identity. The first film was about Bruce realizing what kind of Batman he wants to be, while also realizing that his neglect of his civilian identity has contributed to Gotham's issues. So the second film should be partially about Bruce figuring out how he's gonna do things.
Given that Gotham's been flooded, I think a big element of his character arc is becoming more of a man of the people, using his wealth to help the city during this crisis. He starts coming under the limelight more, and he has to learn how to deal with that since up to that point, he was a total recluse. Being Bruce Wayne is inevitably gonna bring more stress to this character than being Batman.
Part of the first movie is kinda him learning that even if he doesn't want to BE a wealthy socialite, playing the part can be more powerful than throwing punches if he really wants to make a difference in Gotham. There's a shot-for-shot parallel where Batman has to beat his way into the Iceberg Lounge, but Bruce Wayne was just welcomed in because of who he was by the doormen who were still bloodied and bruised from their first encounter.
I'd imagine we're going to get more of that in the sequel. Paraphrasing, but I remember Reeves or Pattinson saying something about how they wanted to focus on the aspect of Batman pretending to be Bruce Wayne rather than Bruce Wayne pretending to be a superhero.
They released 1 mediocre one (Origins) and 3 really good ones. It was done as a formula - Arkham Knight perfected basically everything about Batman gameplay, the gliding is perfect, the movement is the most fluid it's ever been, the combat the most complex and with the most gadgets and enemy types, and the game's artstyle and visual fidelity in general are impressive even to this day.
I'd like to see another one eventually, still. Already been 8 years since Knight.
My ideal Batman game would be one that starts early on in Batman's career, maybe a year or two in. There's a few gimmicky "freaks" around, but the traditional mob families are still managing to hold onto whatever power they have left. Bruce hasn't completely developed a full persona for the Batman. He's still raw, he's not entirely settled in. And the player is given agency, to decide what kind of Batman they want Bruce to be.
You can be a dark avenger who skulks in the shadows, or you can be more of a Silver Age character with a bit more sunshine.
You can be a violent brute, or you can do everything you can to ensure minimal damage is done to those you're fighting.
You can prioritize the safety of civilians above all else, or you can run them over in the Batmobile because you can't be assed to stick to the road.
You can try to minimize your presence as much as possible to become an urban legend, or you can go all out in the spotlight and let the world know who you are.
You could easily trim 20-30 minutes out of the movie and not sacrifice anything important, the whole catwoman plot was a little superfluous, but I guess you could argue you needed an emotional core to the movie, but it didn't land very well for me.
WB thought suicide squad was gonna be the next big fad, so they forced rocksteady to cancel the superman game and start working on it. Or at least thats what ive heard.
I don't think WB even understand the appeal of Superman half the time, so they probably don't think it's even doable for some reason.
Also, I'm not sure if you guys have noticed, but a lot of millennials and zoomers tend to resent youth.
It's more because the Robin character presents a number of challenges that most directors and writers don't tend to be all that interested in taking on. He presents challenges in terms of action choreography as well as character writing. Also, he's inevitably gonna hog a ton of the spotlight, because you can't just make him a secondary character like a lot of Batman films tended to do. Prior to the Reeves film, most Batman films tended to prioritize the villains more than Batman himself. Burton and Schumacher both didn't seem to have much interest in Bruce Wayne, and even Nolan had the antagonists largely steal the show in the latter two films. Most directors and writers don't want to bring in Robin because that would take focus away from the Joker, from the Penguin, Catwoman, etc., etc. And when signing on to make a Batman film, generally, a coming of age story is not really what these people tend to be interested in writing, which is what any Robin story is inevitably gonna be.
If you're making a Batman film that introduces Robin, you're more or less committing to making a Robin film. And if you don't commit to that, then you get Batman Forever. Batman Forever has numerous flaws, but as far as Robin's concerned, the film isn't really all that interested in him. We never even get a proper explanation for why Bruce is taking this 20-year-old in. I get that his family died, but people aren't prone to adopting legal adults. It just kinda happens because the story needs it to happen and it's not focused on. Also, despite Bruce's strong reluctance to let Dick become Robin throughout most of the film, by the end he just kinda shows up in a new costume and Bruce relents because, whatever, Riddler blew up his cave so who even cares anymore. The film didn't focus enough on the Robin character and as a result, it's a very dissatisfying story. If you want to incorporate Robin, you kinda have to have him take center stage.
Yeah, these are pretty good points. I never thought of it that way. I'd love for them to try and tackle it though, it could make for a good movie in my opinion. The best Robin content for me typically focuses on his youthfulness balancing Bruce's hardened exterior and grounding him a bit more. It's why despite also making fun of Burt Ward Robin I loved his portrayal in LEGO Batman, it's great because he's still his own character despite also having elements of parody to him.
Because they were making a Superman game that got cancelled, and then they tried to make a Justice League game which turned into Suicide Squad. I'm sure the plans for the 5G comic line also played a part, since they were *this* close to bastardizing everything about Superman and Batman.
It was time. Arkham Knight was already garbage and the formula was stale.
wrong
right
Starting out the thread with a correct opinion, Knight was boring as frick.
It insists upon itself.
But seriously, it's the one Batman game I haven't finished. It just feels bloated.
Because Rocksteady wanted to move on to other characters (e.g. Superman, a project which ended up getting scrapped for whatever reason), while WB Games also scrapped 2-3 Batman-related projects before making Gotham Knights.
So you can blame WB Games' incompetence.
>So you can blame WB Games' incompetence.
This. Seriously give me access to their IP's and freedom to shop it to devs and I could make them a billion fricking dollary doos.
Battinson is the best live action bat
he's literallyme/10
Yes he is. Hoping in the sequel we see more of Bruce's playboy personality at play though
Yeah I can't see incel Bruce Wayne carrying another movie. It was fine the 1st time for novelty's sake. It would be easier to do if the next movie has a bit of a timeskip
Yeah I'm sure they will. I'm hoping that, since Riddler was finally able to escape being banned from Batman movies and done justice, we can finally get a Dick Grayson/Robin as well, because we're long overdue for that
I dunno about that. I don't really see this series heading in that direction yet. Bruce can barely take care of himself, you expect him to keep a kid from getting killed in the same line of work?
Also, I kinda feel like it's very difficult to actually bring Robin into the picture without making him the protagonist. Batman Forever's handling of Robin was very poor. Like you have three hours to showcase how Bruce and this kid meet while also trying to justify Bruce letting the kid become a vigilante. Plus I can't imagine test audience being very receptive to the sight of a twelve-year-old in armor jumping around and beating up a dozen men twice his size. It's the entire reason Dick Grayson was played by a man closer to his 30s in the Schumacher films.
They did something really smart with Twilightman by making it a year two story.
For characters like Batman, Superman, Spiderman they've reached a point of cultural osmosis that there's no reason to do an "origin" story for them unless you have a really specific vision.
With batman they surprisingly dodged that bullet since the 89 where he's already established.
It wasn't until Nolan that we got anything close to an origin story, and honestly the best parts of Begins are all the year one inspired stuff (which is still my favorite batman story). Once it turns into supervillain wants to spray gas on the city I just check out.
My favorite part about the newest batman is that it is very well grounded, and it has batman running around trying to shut down corruption.
But he's still a costumed vigilante. The entire point of dressing up like a bat and using grappling hooks and shit kinda just boils down to beating up the villain. Getting annoyed at superheroes fighting supervillains is a moronic sentiment. There's no reason to dress up as a bat if he's not dealing with similarly outlandish threats. Supervillains justify superheroes. Without supervillains, superheroes are just vigilantes with excessive power and resources.
>There's no reason to dress up as a bat if he's not dealing with similarly outlandish threats.
Riddler being a livestreaming doomer terrorist with a small social following was a contemporary way of making it pretty outlandish. Lots of civilians point & laugh at the Batsuit, cause wtf is that guy doing lol
But that has its limits. Again, the grappling hook, the armor, all of this shit has to be justified at some point. If Batman does not have threats like the Joker or Mr. Freeze to fight, then you inevitably reach a point where the legitimacy of the Batman becomes questionable. If Superman didn't have enemies like Luthor or Darkseid, then he just becomes an overpowered bully dunking on people who can't do anything to him. If Spider-Man didn't have the Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus, then all of Jameson's criticisms become wholly legitimate.
In order to justify the excessive power and resources at their disposal, superheroes need larger than life threats. If a Batman existed in the city of Detroit with the same resources and competence, then he's not a hero. He's just a jackass taking the law into his own hands, except he has the power and ability to actually get somewhere. And that's a scary concept.
The point of the costume is to strike fear in the criminal element.
Go read year one, he tries to do the same job in a ski mask and it doesn't work because people just see a guy in a ski mask.
As soon as he gets the cape and the cowl he becomes the boogeyman of gotham and people describe him like he's a supernatural entity.
He's a street level hero first and foremost and his best stories and arcs are stretching that to the limit.
He very quickly left the "street level" less than a year into his publications. Batman has been a "street level" hero for less than 10% of his 80 year publication history.
>and it has batman running around trying to shut down corruption.
Seeing him go from Batman to Bruce riding a motorcycle is both so cool and seamless. Dude still has the makeup on.
The batwing scene is my favorite part cause of how hilarious it looked
I'd say the happy medium is to have Dick be a teenager then, like 15/16. Still nimble and still trained to be a great fighter and acrobat
There's still the ethics issue. Originally, Robin was created as a self-insert character for kids, because that's who these Golden Age comics were made for. But these films and games are made for older audiences, and thus things can't be quite the same. If your goal is to keep the audience's sympathies with Batman as is the case with the Reeves film, then incorporating Robin becomes much more difficult. You have to go out of your way to truly justify Bruce allowing a minor to become his partner. On some level, you may have to take the choice completely out of his hands. And that's difficult to balance. Worst case scenario, if you make it impossible for Bruce to prevent the birth of Robin, then you run the risk of making Robin an unlikable character.
Of course, the issue becomes a lot easier if you remove audience sympathy for the Batman character from the equation. If you don't mind the audience seeing Bruce as a morally questionable individual who indoctrinates child soldiers, then it's very easy.
I guess that's true, but I'm sure they could find some way to make it work. I think stuff like the DCAU did it well where each person felt like they could contribute but Bruce didn't force them into it and sometimes even prevented them from doing it.
I always just figured that the reason Robin isn't used in movies was because DC is still stuck in the 60s with a good chunk of their heroes (the Aquaman talks to fish joke even made it into an official movie for example) and most of the time when they have Robin it's just poking fun at the Burt Ward version (despite him by default being the best incarnation of the character in live action). It sucks because as someone who grew up with a show like Teen Titans, where he was cool as shit, I can't see him in the live action movies because DC has zero respect for most of their characters except Batman and Joker.
It's more because the Robin character presents a number of challenges that most directors and writers don't tend to be all that interested in taking on. He presents challenges in terms of action choreography as well as character writing. Also, he's inevitably gonna hog a ton of the spotlight, because you can't just make him a secondary character like a lot of Batman films tended to do. Prior to the Reeves film, most Batman films tended to prioritize the villains more than Batman himself. Burton and Schumacher both didn't seem to have much interest in Bruce Wayne, and even Nolan had the antagonists largely steal the show in the latter two films. Most directors and writers don't want to bring in Robin because that would take focus away from the Joker, from the Penguin, Catwoman, etc., etc. And when signing on to make a Batman film, generally, a coming of age story is not really what these people tend to be interested in writing, which is what any Robin story is inevitably gonna be.
If you're making a Batman film that introduces Robin, you're more or less committing to making a Robin film. And if you don't commit to that, then you get Batman Forever. Batman Forever has numerous flaws, but as far as Robin's concerned, the film isn't really all that interested in him. We never even get a proper explanation for why Bruce is taking this 20-year-old in. I get that his family died, but people aren't prone to adopting legal adults. It just kinda happens because the story needs it to happen and it's not focused on. Also, despite Bruce's strong reluctance to let Dick become Robin throughout most of the film, by the end he just kinda shows up in a new costume and Bruce relents because, whatever, Riddler blew up his cave so who even cares anymore. The film didn't focus enough on the Robin character and as a result, it's a very dissatisfying story. If you want to incorporate Robin, you kinda have to have him take center stage.
Also, I'm not sure if you guys have noticed, but a lot of millennials and zoomers tend to resent youth.
>a lot of millennials and zoomers tend to resent youth.
Anon eventually you get old enough to understand the phrase "youth is wasted on the young." Because you have all the time in the world and nothing worthwhile to do. Then when you get old enough to have shit that needs to get done all you want to do is go to bed.
I don't think you can just transition the Bruce in that film into a playboy. He can barely even make eye contact with people when not wearing the mask. Rather than immediately transition him into a playboy, the second film should place some emphasis on how Bruce is gonna tackle his civilian identity. The first film was about Bruce realizing what kind of Batman he wants to be, while also realizing that his neglect of his civilian identity has contributed to Gotham's issues. So the second film should be partially about Bruce figuring out how he's gonna do things.
Given that Gotham's been flooded, I think a big element of his character arc is becoming more of a man of the people, using his wealth to help the city during this crisis. He starts coming under the limelight more, and he has to learn how to deal with that since up to that point, he was a total recluse. Being Bruce Wayne is inevitably gonna bring more stress to this character than being Batman.
Film should be about his incel struggles vs. Poison Ivy.
I can see that happening. I'm all for Batman having an arc since most Batman movies haven't really done that with LEGO Batman and Reeves being the most notable examples
Sounds like exactly what I'm hoping for. I think Hugo Strange would make a great villain for this vulnerable, unrefined version of Bruce.
I feel like I recently saw some clickbait entertainment headline where they mentioned strange and the next batman movie.
Yeah, he was a good Batman but a shitty Bruce Wayne, hope that's corrected for the next movie.
Part of the first movie is kinda him learning that even if he doesn't want to BE a wealthy socialite, playing the part can be more powerful than throwing punches if he really wants to make a difference in Gotham. There's a shot-for-shot parallel where Batman has to beat his way into the Iceberg Lounge, but Bruce Wayne was just welcomed in because of who he was by the doormen who were still bloodied and bruised from their first encounter.
I'd imagine we're going to get more of that in the sequel. Paraphrasing, but I remember Reeves or Pattinson saying something about how they wanted to focus on the aspect of Batman pretending to be Bruce Wayne rather than Bruce Wayne pretending to be a superhero.
too bad the movie is a slog
It's a slow burn
nagger catwoman is ugly and I hate that actress
They released 1 mediocre one (Origins) and 3 really good ones. It was done as a formula - Arkham Knight perfected basically everything about Batman gameplay, the gliding is perfect, the movement is the most fluid it's ever been, the combat the most complex and with the most gadgets and enemy types, and the game's artstyle and visual fidelity in general are impressive even to this day.
I'd like to see another one eventually, still. Already been 8 years since Knight.
My ideal Batman game would be one that starts early on in Batman's career, maybe a year or two in. There's a few gimmicky "freaks" around, but the traditional mob families are still managing to hold onto whatever power they have left. Bruce hasn't completely developed a full persona for the Batman. He's still raw, he's not entirely settled in. And the player is given agency, to decide what kind of Batman they want Bruce to be.
You can be a dark avenger who skulks in the shadows, or you can be more of a Silver Age character with a bit more sunshine.
You can be a violent brute, or you can do everything you can to ensure minimal damage is done to those you're fighting.
You can prioritize the safety of civilians above all else, or you can run them over in the Batmobile because you can't be assed to stick to the road.
You can try to minimize your presence as much as possible to become an urban legend, or you can go all out in the spotlight and let the world know who you are.
>3 hour long batman movie
You could easily trim 20-30 minutes out of the movie and not sacrifice anything important, the whole catwoman plot was a little superfluous, but I guess you could argue you needed an emotional core to the movie, but it didn't land very well for me.
The real question is why haven't they made a Superman game yet?
WB thought suicide squad was gonna be the next big fad, so they forced rocksteady to cancel the superman game and start working on it. Or at least thats what ive heard.
I don't think WB even understand the appeal of Superman half the time, so they probably don't think it's even doable for some reason.
Yeah, these are pretty good points. I never thought of it that way. I'd love for them to try and tackle it though, it could make for a good movie in my opinion. The best Robin content for me typically focuses on his youthfulness balancing Bruce's hardened exterior and grounding him a bit more. It's why despite also making fun of Burt Ward Robin I loved his portrayal in LEGO Batman, it's great because he's still his own character despite also having elements of parody to him.
Because WB cannot manage an IP for shit.
Because they were making a Superman game that got cancelled, and then they tried to make a Justice League game which turned into Suicide Squad. I'm sure the plans for the 5G comic line also played a part, since they were *this* close to bastardizing everything about Superman and Batman.