At the time he was cast as Batman, Val looks too young to be taken a court-ordered ward like Chris O'Donnell as Grayson.
...
Keaton was way better, although Heath Ledger blew Jack out of the water as the joker.
The Mouse is right. O'Donnel was too old for a Robin-age Dick Grayson.That was 100% a problem with casting O'Donnel, and 0% a problem with casting Kilmer. Val Kilmer was the right age for Batman; O'Donnel was way too old to be playing Robin.
At Val's age at the time they shot Batman Forever, you'd have to find a 14-year-old actor to portray a proper father/son vibe on-screen.The Mouse is right. O'Donnel was too old for a Robin-age Dick Grayson.
When you decide to put Robin in a Batman franchise, you have to aim for the Father/Son vibe, showing how Bruce took the boy to his home because he saw a reflection of his own tragedy. For a modern audience, you could even establish that Bruce knew John and Mary Grayson from his travels, and adopts the boy as his son after they die.
At Val's age at the time they shot Batman Forever, you'd have to find a 14-year-old actor to portray a proper father/son vibe on-screen.
As for the grown man taking a kid to battle, I have my versions of that dynamic. The short of it: it wasn't Batman's idea.Which is exactly the age--or even a bit older--that a "starting" Robin should be.
There's a reason he was called the "Boy Wonder."
Now, if you want to argue about whether a grown man should be taking a young teenager into battle, that's a different story. But if you are going to include Robin, do it. Don't cast a twenty-something actor as an upper-teens character, and pretend it's all the same as a low-teens character.
NOW that I know what he looks like, Kevin Conroy is a very good replacement to Adam West's Batman. He, out of all the choices above, is most likely to master the Bat-tusi dance.Barring Kevin Conroy,...