The "realism" thread

[Excelsior.]

Oh Ok.

[ALP]

Realism in terms of physics can kiss my ***. I get what Nolan is doing and quite like it but at the same time I think he goes too far with trying to make Gotham and it's inhabitants all an exact mirror of the world we are in. To such an extent that he has even specifically blocked out the possibility of certain villains because they are not 'realistic' enough for what he does. Don't get me wrong, as I said, I really like Nolan's Batman movies but what they are missing most is style because he wants it to be so life-like.

That's why I love Snyder and all of the awesome shiz he adapted in Watchmen. We don't need the biggest life-like explanation for Doc Manhattan. He simply goes into the giant microwave, is blasted into a billion pieces, and returns as a demi-god.

[Excelsior.]

I really like Nolan's Batman movies but what they are missing most is style because he wants it to be so life-like.

It isn't anymore life like than Raimi's Spider-man's universe. Yet we had Ock and Venom fit in perfectly. What Raimi's movies had was cheese and that's got no bearing on art direction.

[Kahran Ramsus]

To such an extent that he has even specifically blocked out the possibility of certain villains because they are not 'realistic' enough for what he does.

He's right though. Villains like Clayface and Man-Bat won't work at all in the universe he's created for these films. There are still plenty of villains that would fit, so it isn't like he's tossing out the entire rogue's gallery.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm fine with Nolan doing his realistic take as long as we get a semi-realistic version down the line with villains like Clayface and Mr Freeze down the line. Something more like BTAS and the 70's comics.

[CrimsonMist]

Here's my two-cents on Nolan's world: Even in his realistic setting, I don't think a character like The Ventriloquist could work. He's pretty basic villain, and pretty realistic. But he's pure pulp. That's a difference, I think. Pulp and realism. And not to start a war or anything, but i think Anton Furst's Gotham and Burton's atmosphere established in his first film was the perfect Gotham, as you could pull off a Batman vs The Mob film or a Batman vs Man-Bat film. You can only do the former in Nolan's Gotham(as even the Joker was firmly planted in this kind of realistic setting. The permawhite wasn't realistic enough to make the cut). And where I enjoy Nolan's films, I am saddened that he didn't fully embrace the pulp roots of comic books. That pulp realism is realism warped just enough to make characters like The Ventriloquist or Venom or Doc Ock work without blowing the feel of the film, if that makes any sense.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I loved the TDK and kinda liked Batman Begins and I'm happy that those films were made but I don't like the fact that alot of Batman's rogues gallery won't fit into Nolan's Batman world. It's not a deal breaker because I dig the films but it does annoy me.

A perfect Batman movie to me would allow for even the terrible ass Clock King to make an apperence. (Ofcourse I never want to see Clock King in a movie)

[PreK]

Nolan's gritty realism (I use that word lightly) might not be my ideal Batman universe, but I'm not quite understanding the frustration with its exclusivity. The tone depicted in the mythos is a two-way street.

I feel like if we had gotten a full-blown fantasy world, there would be complaints that the raw and visceral nature of the character had been lost. Not so strangely -- they'd be right. Any batfan that has even the most minimal knowledge of the source would know many of the stories that (technically) take place in the same universe, are quite different themselves. Bats could handle low-level thugs one day, and fight literal gods the next. Each story presents its own tonal consistency which wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for another arc.

Moreover, Nolan can only pump out so many movies of his vision. We're only coming up on the third (and likely last). Would someone kindly point out 3 successive Batman books that successfully captured every key moment of the universe? It probably doesn't exist due to it's impossible nature. Whatever Nolan (or any other director for that matter) could have done, they'd still be leaving out elements of another famous interpretation. Be it a supporting character, a villain, or a popular story arc. It's simply placing absurd demands on an artist. The doors they leave open/closed cannot be directly compared to the comics as unlike the books, these movies are finite. Nolan's series won't be continued once he's done with it. So (insert character here) not being "allowed" to exist in this universe is irrelevant to the fact that they wouldn't have been put there in the first place by that writer. It's a nullified concern, if you ask me.

[Astro13Zombie]

Thank you for making this thread.
The whole "Realism" thing in comic book movies is getting ridiculous.
I hate it.

[Excelsior.]

How many realistic comic book movie have been released post Dark knight? Oh right, none.

Each story presents its own tonal consistency which wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for another arc.

Heck, you can apply this to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Both look and feel completely different to each other. They also tell vastly different stories.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by Nuffsaid

It isn't anymore life like than Raimi's Spider-man's universe. Yet we had Ock and Venom fit in perfectly. What Raimi's movies had was cheese and that's got no bearing on art direction.

Not necessarily cheese...but tone. But you're right their worlds both look life like.

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I'm fine with Nolan doing his realistic take as long as we get a semi-realistic version down the line with villains like Clayface and Mr Freeze down the line. Something more like BTAS and the 70's comics.

Fully agreed.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by CrimsonMist

Here's my two-cents on Nolan's world: Even in his realistic setting, I don't think a character like The Ventriloquist could work. He's pretty basic villain, and pretty realistic. But he's pure pulp. That's a difference, I think. Pulp and realism. And not to start a war or anything, but i think Anton Furst's Gotham and Burton's atmosphere established in his first film was the perfect Gotham, as you could pull off a Batman vs The Mob film or a Batman vs Man-Bat film. You can only do the former in Nolan's Gotham(as even the Joker was firmly planted in this kind of realistic setting. The permawhite wasn't realistic enough to make the cut). And where I enjoy Nolan's films, I am saddened that he didn't fully embrace the pulp roots of comic books. That pulp realism is realism warped just enough to make characters like The Ventriloquist or Venom or Doc Ock work without blowing the feel of the film, if that makes any sense.

While I don't really like Batman'89 on the whole because the story is weak, I do like the look and feel of the film because of art direction, setting, score, etc. I'm firmly of the belief that a close to perfect tone for a Batman film would be to shoot straight for the middle between Batman'89 and Nolan's Batman universe.

[Chris Wallace]

Most would agree, I think.

[S.A.A.D.]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

Here we're going to discuss the concept of realism in comic book movies. It's a topic which I personally feel is being pushed too far, between the subdued fantasy aspects in movies such as Captain America (going for a more "military" looking costume rather than his traditional duds) and The Dark Knight, and the popularity of Kick-Ass. It's little wonder so many fans are falling under this spell and saying they want things like a more home-made looking costume for Spider-Man or a more durable one for Superman. We seem to be forgetting that comic books are fantasy. Superheroes are not a part of the real world. Certain realistic aspects are fine, but while nobody wants to see another absurd nonsense-fest like Batman & Robin, we shouldn't let the pendulum get pushed too far the other way, lest we end up losing the things we love about these characters and stories in the first place.
Discuss.

Yes,yes,yes. It means making the comic book movie predictable in cases,reflecting things that are comprehended and which have been experienced in reality. And uninspiring.

[Bat-Mite]

Originally Posted by Nuffsaid

How many realistic comic book movie have been released post Dark knight? Oh right, none.

Yes, and yet we keep hearing cries that the sky is falling. If they make a Superman that can't fly, doesn't have a cape, can't shoot lasers from his eyes, etc., then these fears might actually have some merit. Until then, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

It's a topic which I personally feel is being pushed too far, between the subdued fantasy aspects in movies such as Captain America (going for a more "military" looking costume rather than his traditional duds) and The Dark Knight, and the popularity of Kick-Ass.

Have the creators of the Captain America movie actually said that "realism" was a factor in this decision? Could it be that they just thought it might look better? I seriously doubt Bryan Singer was the least bit concerned with "realism" when he gave the X-Men black leather costumes. He probably just thought it would look better, and I gotta admit, it's hard for me to imagine taking any of them seriously in a live action movie if they'd been wearing their comic book costumes. Some characters, like Spider-Man and Superman, can pull that off, but I don't think the X-Men could have.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Bat-Mite

Yes, and yet we keep hearing cries that the sky is falling. If they make a Superman that can't fly, doesn't have a cape, can't shoot lasers from his eyes, etc., then these fears might actually have some merit. Until then, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. Have the creators of the Captain America movie actually said that "realism" was a factor in this decision? Could it be that they just thought it might look better? I seriously doubt Bryan Singer was the least bit concerned with "realism" when he gave the X-Men black leather costumes. He probably just thought it would look better, and I gotta admit, it's hard for me to imagine taking any of them seriously in a live action movie if they'd been wearing their comic book costumes. Some characters, like Spider-Man and Superman, can pull that off, but I don't think the X-Men could have.

yes they said the changes to the costume were to make it more realistic

[roach]

My issues with Nolan's movies is it doesnt allow for a Mr. Freeze or a Penguin or even a Robin. To me it makes it an incomplete universe...as if someone wanted to remake Star Wars but no advanced weapons or Force. Its why I prefer the Marvel movies. When I watched Spider-man I never said to myself "There is noway they can do Lizard or Vulture."
I am glad that Nolan got a chance to do the movies hopefully the next director who comes to reboot the series will do away with the black rubber and bring us a world where if someone fell into a vat of chemicals they'd come out permawhite

[ALP]

I like what Nolan did, Begins will always be an incredible movie in my eye, same for TDK.

I don't mind if certain characters can't work in his world b/c it's finite, he's only doing a trilogy and you can only fit so many characters in three films anyway. No Freeze or Robin but there are still a plethora of other characters to utilize.

But as a whole, I've always liked comic films most that have a stylized/fantasy feel. I mean my three favorite filmmakers are all ones that have no interest in capturing gritty reality but instead present alternate fantasy worlds. So I do anticipate one day we will get another retro-expressionistic Gotham like in the comics.

[PreK]

Originally Posted by roach

My issues with Nolan's movies is it doesnt allow for a Mr. Freeze or a Penguin or even a Robin.

Does it really matter considering he was never going to adapt them in the first place? Once Nolan's finished with TDKR, that effectively closes the book on this particular series.

It's not fair to condemn Nolan for his preferred approach on the character, which is faithful to the source on its own right. No one reads Y1 and thinks, "what the hell, Clayface doesn't fit in this universe!". The comics may technically have one timeline in the canon, but truthfully many of these stories are self-contained due to their tone.

That's how I see Nolan's take.

[roach]

but nothing in Y1 precludes a Clayface or a Mr Freeze...its not that he's not gonna adapt them but if they decide to continue that universe past Nolan then what?
For example in the Spider-man Raimi universe even though they never showed Rhino you knew if the series progressed he'd eventually show up.

[Bat-Mite]

Originally Posted by roach

but nothing in Y1 precludes a Clayface or a Mr Freeze...its not that he's not gonna adapt them but if they decide to continue that universe past Nolan then what?
For example in the Spider-man Raimi universe even though they never showed Rhino you knew if the series progressed he'd eventually show up.

Then the next director can keep the tone of the series, but still include Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Man-bat, etc. Even if he chooses to keep his films in the same storyline, the next director will be no more obligated to play by Nolan's rules than Schumacher was to play by Burton's.

[PreK]

Originally Posted by roach

but nothing in Y1 precludes a Clayface or a Mr Freeze...its not that he's not gonna adapt them but if they decide to continue that universe past Nolan then what?
For example in the Spider-man Raimi universe even though they never showed Rhino you knew if the series progressed he'd eventually show up.

Erm...what?? I want you to clarify this. Y1 is about as gritty and down-to-earth as a Batman can story can ever get. Nolan's films have been grounded, but they featured tons more of comic book spectacle and illustrious characters.

How in the world are Nolan's films drawing that firm line, but somehow Y1 isn't?

[Excelsior.]

Then the next director can keep the tone of the series, but still include Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Man-bat, etc.

Just like the comics that canonically follow Year One. Its simple really.

[roach]

Because at no time did Frank Miller say his universe doesnt include superheroes or Robin or Mr Freeze...infact Year one is part of the Dark Knight Universe which includes Batman/Spawn, All Star Batman and Robin, The Dark Knight Returns and the Dark Knight Strikes Back.

[Excelsior.]

I don't think you even understood what PreK was asking.