g0atbra1nz

[g0atbra1nz]

just making things up

[g0atbra1nz]

forget about tim

[g0atbra1nz]

the brain worms got to me and I’m never recovering from this one

(individual drawings and sketches under the cut)

[g0atbra1nz]

battling art block with putting timbern in places i like

[g0atbra1nz]

These two are my life now

[g0atbra1nz]

comics your civilian casts…don’t forget about your civilian casts 💔

[g0atbra1nz]

Tim stood no chance

[g0atbra1nz]

Raven

[g0atbra1nz]

Yes I CAN justify rereading Urban Legends again instead of literally doing anything else.

This alter Bernard is on?

Yeah, there's a symbol on that. A symbol for Dionysus, specifically an astrological one.

my brain is too fried to put anything into proper words but no one talk about the relationship between astrology, alchemy and the greek gods without me, i need to do more research and create bullshit conspiracy theories. might take a day or twelve.

[g0atbra1nz]

this was supposed to just be a pose study but then i got carried away… they fascinate me

[g0atbra1nz]

in and out of costume

[g0atbra1nz]

he is NOT thirteen 😭

[g0atbra1nz]

[g0atbra1nz]

Omg I completely agree with this take

The amount of dudebros I've argued with who genuinely believe "Batman works alone" as if Robin hasn't existed since 1940. All the live action Batman solo movies have really distorted people's understanding of who Batman is. (Not that these stories can't exist but I'm tired of the majority of live action Batman movies not complying with the bare minimum of comic canon).

The main argument against having Robin is that he's too bright and/or campy to fit the dark, gritty themes of The Batman. To that I say you clearly don't understand Batman then.

There are plenty of dark comics with violence, gore and death, and the writers are always flawlessly capable of fitting Robin into those stories. Robin is an integral part of Batman's story. Robin has always existed alongside Batman and without him it's just not Batman.

Anyways, have this:

Tim Drake in Batman #442

Unpopular Opinion Re: Batman

The Batman: Part II has had its script completed and now production can go forward so that it can release in October 2027, five and a half years after the release of its predecessor.

And I'm just going to come out and say it: at this point, I honestly don't think it's gonna be worth the wait for me if it doesn't include one specific thing in it. And that thing is Robin.

I am quite frankly sick to death of modern creators of Batman projects either leaving out or downplaying Robin. Jim Starlin, the writer who killed off Jason Todd, hated the whole concept of Robin. Tim Burton forewent any chance to have Robin in his movies because he preferred to keep Batman more isolated and crazy. Bruce Timm and Alan Burnett didn't want Robin in their show because they thought "Batman works best alone" and when forced to put him in by the network downplayed him as much as possible and frequently seemed to intentionally make him annoying when he was around (they actually got better with this when trading Dick Grayson out for Tim Drake). The Dark Knight Trilogy made Robin into some random young police officer literally named Robin, which we don't even find out until the last minute just before he goes on to become the next Batman. And the DCEU had Robin already dead.

Now, I know what you're gonna say: the new DCU's The Brave and the Bold movie will already include Robin (Damian Wayne), so it shouldn't matter if The Batman: Part II does. But the DCU is already established as lighter and more fantastical, and so my problem would still persist if he isn't in Matt Reeves' universe - my problem being that so many people seem to be under this impression that a "dark and gritty" rendition of Batman can't work with Robin, and that Robin being introduced and lightening Batman up somewhat was a mistake to begin with, that Batman worked better as a loner as he was in the Detective Comics issues before Robin's introduction (a loner who used guns and killed, btw). That the shallow, thinly-sketched work-in-progress is superior to the more fleshed out, humanized and interesting character he became once he actually had someone to play off of. It's astoundingly hypocritical - why axe Robin yet still keep him working with Gordon, whom he did not work with in the original issues (him doing so was a post-Crisis invention)? Why keep Alfred, who was originally introduced after Robin (again, him as the Wayne family butler and Bruce's surrogate father was only invented post-Crisis)? And why keep all of the Rogues Gallery, which literally only came into existence (starting with the Joker and Catwoman) after Robin's introduction? Why draw the line at Robin? Are you still that scared of "Holy ___, Batman!" memories coming up from viewers? Or association with the worst-performing Batman movie ever since it had his name in it? Some actually argue "Robin never made any logical sense; why take a literal child and make him a crime-fighter and put him in danger while wearing a bright-colored costume?", as if a billionaire dressing up like a bat to go beat up criminals makes perfect logical sense!

So please, Matt Reeves, if your script doesn't include him already: give Robin a chance.

[g0atbra1nz]

what are you wearing

[g0atbra1nz]

look at my super heros dawgggggg we goin to die 😫🤯🤣

[g0atbra1nz]

🟩🟧🟥🟪

Justice Gang