Happy with no Robin?
He was in early drafts of the script but he structure of the story didn't admit Robin very easily.
The film did just fine with no Robin.
Yes. It didn't need him. Michael Keaton's darker, more unhinged Batman worked better as a loner.
I've always liked the scene where Keaton goes crazy "Let's get nuts!" for three reasons.
First, you can hear his Beetlejuice voice when he says that line. Second, watch The Joker, he actually flinches when Bruce smashes the vase, which is hilarious considering he's supposed to be the psycho, and third, it pretty much tells you that Keaton's Bruce is mentally unbalanced. I don't see him with a Robin.
Also it was the years before Robin came in, in Batman's early years he worked solo, so with the film reflecting that all it did was stay true to the mythology of the characters.
Same with the Nolan trilogy and The Batman I think everyone was fine with no Robin, I can't remember one person who's going "they should've had Robin".
Well...they did change who was responsible for the death of Bruce's parents. It wasn't originally the Joker when he was young and not yet the Joker. It was another guy in the comics.
share'Michael Keaton's darker, more unhinged Batman worked better as a loner.'
Exactly. Robin would feel out of place.