Which one?
Earth 1 Robin I: Dick Grayson
Earth 2 Robin I: Dick Grayson
Earth 1 Robin II: Jason Todd
Earth 2 Robin II: Bruce Wayne Jr.(Imaginary Stories)
Earth 1 Robin III: Tim Drake
That would be if comic books moved at the same rate of time that we do. As far as I’ve seen, they never do.
What wasn’t DC?
Except in Elseworlds and “Imaginary Stories”, the characters do not age, and if anything often become younger in the case of Catwoman, Spider-Man, and a few others to suit the whims of the writers(generally more an editorial decision).
Mockingbird wasn’t DC.
I think it’s the most over hyped comic ever.
While Watchmen is equally hyped, it stands the test of time better, and has a far richer story.
Miller, in my opinion, while he did introduce an aged Batman in his story, didn’t do anything but show us a superhero dystopia with all of the brightness of the DC characters shown with either tarnish or thorough degredation.
Watchmen made societal comment on the political systems of the time(and what is old is new again in Dubya) as well as societal mores.
It was a human story using superheros as the method of story telling. I think that there is a far deeper connection readers would have to the characters in Watchmen over the cold and distant thumbnails put forth by Miller in the Dark Knight Returns.
Well, he is the leader of the Secret Six…
And the Bobbi Morse Barton Mockingbird wasn’t brough into this debate by me.
No, she is a member of the Avengers (or used to be, or wasn’t, or might have been).
Okay… I will explain again.
In the DCU Mockingbird is the head of the Secret Six.
Bobbi Morse Barton was the Mockingbird who was in the West Coast Avengers and is currently dead.
I realize that, I just think that it’s incredibly lame that some of these characters just happen to wind up undergoing storylines or plot devices that retard their ages.
Why? If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Why does it bother you that these characters continue to exist if others like them and want them around?
Heh, I flipped through a comic that reminded me of this thread. It’s the prologue of a storyline that’s apparently going to get into the truth of Nightcrawler’s early years, such as finally answering whether Mystique is really his mother (yes) and who his father is (you have to read it). The events leading to his birth take place, according to a caption (if I remember it right), “twenty years ago.” 
He didn’t use moisturizer and stayed out in the sun too often.
I disagree with you about this as much as I possibly can. There are several things that you have to keep in mind when you read DKR, not least of them is that Miller is first and foremost a crime fiction writer: witness his career breakthrough on Daredevil (he turned the Kingpin, an unsuperpowered crime lord, from a second stringer into a major villain in the MU). This is a bit of speculation on my part, but I strongly suspect that Miller is less than enamored of super-heroes (which might be why you were less than enamored of his version of Batman). I’m sure he likes them fine, but he doesn’t seem to put them on the same pedestal as so many other writers do, and his willingness to drag them through the muck as it were shows through, but it also seems to be what makes him such a talent when writing super-heroes (DKR2 and Spawn/Batman not withstanding).
Miller took a deep look at what the psyche of a super-hero would actually have to be for them to go out and in effect mete out their version of justice as has been seen in so many comics. At the core of any person willing to use force to inflict their personal values upon others, even over the relevant social system at times, lies something that is often frighteningly close to fascism. This was an awakening for a great many people that sent a shock through the comics industry and has been a recurrent theme in a great many other comics stories (e.g. James Robinson’s The Golden Age, and Mark Millar’s The Authority). Even Alan Moore saw this and the Watchmen’s Comedian can be seen as a more realistic contrast to Marvel’s Captain America).
Fascism at the core of most comic characters is also an interesting point when viewed through your “distant thumbnails” comment, because ultimately the most famous super-hero icons are just that when distilled down to their basic values, and when considering the varied histories of most characters it is difficult to discuss them in any serious or critical way without looking at them in such a way (I’m not talking about storylines, I’m talking about the characters themselves). We usually miss their apparent fascism because the values they are enforcing are often ones that we as the reader often share (which arguably is a scary commentary about ourselves). If they are not fascistic and are actually beholden to a societal authority Miller argues they run the risk of being puppets to other’s values (DKR’s Superman). This might seem like an either-or situation for super-heroes, but when you consider that the majority of super-heroes are vigilantes their nobility and motivation for doing what they do falls into question. I think all of the above is what Miller intended to comment upon, not only within the fictional worlds of super-heroes, but also in the often real world lynch-mob mentality of the public and the self-righteousness of more than a few people in power.
Moving onto a completely different area of the sophistication of Miller’s DKR, it’s been raised that Miller also offered up DKR up as a defense against certain sectors of the establishment that have vilified comics in general and super-heroes specifically as being morally lacking. Geoff Klock in his excellent book “How to Read Superhero Comics and Why” argues that parts of DKR are a direct challenge to people like Fredric Wertham and argues that the Robin in DKR was made a female to counteract the frequent accusations that Batman and Robin were a gay couple (not that there would be anything wrong with that). Klock also offers up this insight as a counterargument to the accusations that comics encourage looseness with one’s sexuality (a capstone of crusaders of morality pyramid of evil vices):
As far as your specific criticisms: concerning your comparison of Watchmen to DKR andDKR’s lack of human aspect, I think you may be right, but that is not something that I feel is a weakness of DKR as opposed to one of its strengths. DKR was an attempt to deal with Batman as what he is to the masses: an icon. When dealing with an icon, something distilled down to its idealized version, you’re dealing with something that the average human with its problems and foibles is incapable of identifying with and is often only left to admire. How would Miller have written Batman as an icon (which was his attempt, witness Batman’s age which seems tied to his first appearance in 1939 and implies that he has his entire history behind him) other than as something that is in effect inhuman? It seems to me that Moore recognized and commented on the same in the Watchmen with the one actual super-powered being having distanced himself from the world and being viewed by the public as a symbol (analogous to icon) of America’s power.
Concerning commentary on political systems of the time DKR has plenty of that as well. Doctor Manhattan and Superman are used in remarkably similar ways by Nixon and Reagan respectively, as enforcers of political ideologies. In both instances the government has at their disposal a god (as was noted in a text piece at the end of one of the issues of Watchmen), and instead of using their gods to bring about a utopia on Earth they are used to promote political agendas and wage war (tell me if that isn’t a commentary on the political systems of the world). Miller’s dim view of politics and most politicians is also on display when the Mayor of Gotham (a bumbling fellow when confronted with the “Batman dilemma”) agrees to have a face to face meeting with the head of Mutant gang and consequently gets killed; I would argue that Miller is here saying that most politicians, instead of using common sense or approaching problems with the purpose of solving a problem instead wait for poll results and make moves based upon what they think will resonate the strongest with the public (granted, not a new criticism, but Miller makes it poignantly with the character of the mayor).
I will grant you that Watchmen has stood the test of time better, but I think that is largely in Moore’s choice of Nixon as President as opposed to Miller’s choice of Reagan. Although I’m sure Ann Coulter will write a book in a few years defending him, Nixon conjures up images of corruption and the greed of politicians and Moore’s choice of Nixon was obviously an attempt to symbolize those things, and Nixon’s fifteen-plus years in office in Watchmen strikes me as Moore commenting on the timelessness of these characteristics and our ability to identify them with politicians and thus allows the book to always keep a certain measure of relevancy. Miller’s choice of Reagan I think ties the book to the eighties as Reagan has not been as vilified and become such an icon of the corruption of politicians as Nixon has (well, not in most circles). I still think that there are enough other threads and messages within its story to allow DKR a certain measure of immortality however.
As far as your dislike of Miller turning a mainstream hero and the DCU into a dystopia if you look back on what I have written how would Miller have made the points he made if the world wasn’t screwed up? Heck, you could even argue that Miller was pointing out that the shiny happiness so often seen in super-hero comics (well, less now than before) is one of the reasons that super-hero comics aren’t taken seriously by the mainstream. The world the Watchmen is set in is just as screwed up. If your main complaint with Miller’s story is that it dirties up the DCU remember that it is only one story, and one that is held separate from the main DCU.
I can’t really comment on your opinion of Watchmen having a far richer story as it is your opinion (actually of the two I like Watchmen better as well, but not as much as you do), but I am surprised that you find it to be so overrated.
He’s a mediocre crime fiction writer.
If James Ellroy had done it… Elmore Leonard… well, it would have been good.
Instead it was shocking for its time, has lost that nearly 20 years later, and will become a footnote as time goes on.
My complaint isn’t that it “tarnishes” the DCU… it is that it is poorly created, populist crap that I think in the end has little redeeming value or artistic merit.
Watchmen is a very intelligent, well crafted look at a dystopia that has character development, a complex story that has its loose ends tied up, and makes one want to keep reading.