The Dark Knight Rises Are Nolan's Batman Films Really THAT Realistic?!

[Catman]

Simple logic.

Let's not forget that there IS a flashback with a young Ra's al Ghul. So, he has to find the Pit before he can build a wall around it.

 

[Doctor Who]

I don't think the words REALISTIC are nessasary for Nolan's Batman world anymore; infact, who thinks it's better left to be defined as believable?

 

[TheBatman072]

Let's not forget that there IS a flashback with a young Ra's al Ghul. So, he has to find the Pit before he can build a wall around it.

And just because we have a young Ra's Al Ghul flashback doesn't mean we're going to get a Pit.

We had an actual, present day Ra's Al Ghul and we never got a Pit.

 

[Figs]

I didn't bother to read any of the posts in here, but to answer the question in one word...NO.

People who keep calling his films realistic need to wake up. He didn't make them realistic, he made them so you could believe Gotham could be a real city in the world/America. He grounded it so it wasn't as fantasy based, but it's not realistic.

 

[Bat-Gasm]

Heightened reality

 

[thedarks0ldier]

I thought these films were documentaries.

 

[Catman]

I thought these films were documentaries.

Damn. Another category it got robbed at on the Oscars.

 

[Brother Jack]

These films are not realistic and have never been. What most mistake for realism is a version of Batman mythos that is grounded heavily in its own set of logistics, giving it the illusion of being close to the real world. None of these characters, and many others things in the series, could ever exist as they are in the real world.

 

[the Wankstar]

I don't think the words REALISTIC are nessasary for Nolan's Batman world anymore; infact, who thinks it's better left to be defined as believable?

Thank you also team nolan has always called it hyper reality anyways. which they said meant theyll stretch realism but not past the point of believeability

 

[Grayson]

I love Nolan's realism/logical/believable/whatever approach. It's what made me a Batman fan, and it's still my favorite take on Batman after all these years.

 

[Gianakin_]

Ditto. It is only after BB that I started reading Batman comics and became a fan. And no, Nolan's world is by no means realistic.

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

I thought these films were documentaries.

Good one!

 

[BatFan88]

Sometimes I think fans get too caught up on the so-called realism in Nolan's Batman films. At the end of the day, this is still the story of a billionaire who dresses up like a bat to fight criminals in clown costumes. So, despite all the realism it's still pretty... un-realistic. That's why I don't understand all the complaints and concerns about the Lazarus Pit in Dark Knight Rises. As long as Nolan uses SCIENCE instead of the supernatural we'll be fine. And if Nolan has figured out a way to make the Lazarus Pit work in his universe then that opens the door to MANY other things like, you know, BANE! Will we see a juiced-up/HUGE Bane beat up Batman?! It seems very likely at this point.

At most points i completely agree with you,we ofcourse dont know if it is the lazarus pit.

And yeah the batfilms from Nolan aren't that realistic like most say,like the face of two-face isn't that normal is it? you cant walk around with a face like that,you will be dead already in real-life the wounds will get infected and than your dead.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

OP, you've got it all wrong. Who told you that these movies are realistic?

They aren't.

They are simply "grounded", meaning everything that happens, follows a sense of hypotheticals and rules that are bent so slightly that we, as audience members, can't distinguish it much from reality. It's not meant to be realistic as much as it is believable.

It's the believability vs realism split.

 

[Daxceon]

With Two-Face's resilience in mind as a stretch of plausibility the only other thing in these movies that is a leap in logic aside from scientific whiz-bangery, is a blue flower, a flower that follows the rule of similar flowers that actual exist. The Nolan films are not realistic but as many have said they occupy a world of heighten realism. They follow the natural progression of things which have themselves been witnessed and back up with real life examples and scientific fact.

People can glide in the real world, so Batman has a electric cape that can become the most accurate one-man air transport in the world.

People have been known to survive terrible situation where most people would not, so a man with bone deep burns to his jowls can still speak and better yet seek vengeances.

A Microwave machine does exist. In the Nolan films there is one that can differentiate and target specific elements and heat only these elements.

Miracle cures and immortality are things of fantasy and superstition, they are not backed up with anything besides blind faith in fairy tales and very old, over translated texts that have their many shades of meaning lost over time and misinterpretation.

They essentially say in Batman Begins that Ra's is more of an idea than anything else, much like Batman, the mythos around the two characters are openly compared. Why in a set of films that had an opportunity in the past to depict a comic accurate version of the character but strove not to, now make changes down the line in future films? The logic in the narrative would be lost all past events could be undone and we could be left with the soap operaish mess of tangled Batman lore that currently exists in the trade paperbacks.

Being the last in the series do you really think that Nolan would take the type of universe that he established - one which finds the idea of a boy wonder absurd and out of place for one thing - and throw in a magic pool of life giving water? It would be like a modern Bond film having an actual philosopher's stone. That's the kind of concession that Nolan would be making. Turning it from a mild science fiction adventure thriller to an overblown fantasy adventure thriller.

Now I am not saying that it can't be done in Batman and done well but no this Batman. It is the difference between the Bourne films and Indiana Jones films. t
It would be like saying that Themyscira exists in Nolan’s universe, its that kind of leap that not only wouldn’t make sense but would erode what has been established as doable with these films. Everything would be compromised.

Is the first Iron Man film all the stronger for having itself linked to the Thor film? I would say no, as its fantasy of science has now been diluted by the addition of magic - an idea that wasn’t even considered in the script of Iron Man, that magic exist now in that universe feels artificial and out of place. Iron Man was heralded as a surprise hit, one which like Batman took logical leaps out of reality (to a larger degree I admit) now there is little that links the two, commendable as the cohesive nature of the Marvel movies is, there has been a distinct loss in credibility to the whole affair. It is gimmicks like this that Nolan hasn‘t implemented (his Batman will never meet Superman) and why I think he never will.

So I'm going to say no to this whole pit thing. If it is in the film, it will not do what it does in the the comics.

 

[Batz]

I think its down to his small use of CGI, Two-Face aside Nolan doesn't use half as much as other superhero films.

 

[Daxceon]

Also while I am still in critical mode, using the word “science” in lieu of “magic” doesn’t fix the problem, You can’t say “Oh make the Lazarus pit work with “Science”!” It is just as bad, just as much as a leap as with magic, changing the word doesn’t change to overall effect, you just anger people more.

Here an ideas - using what we know of science explain to me how a Lazarus Pit would work? There are no examples of such a pit or device or cream, with those properties in nature - all who claim rejuvenation are merely experiencing or delivering a placebo reaction. Having make up put on or a new “wonder cream” or whatever. If it is so game changing why aren’t hospitals using it? With everything else in the Nolan Batman films there is something backing it up, no matter how small or farfetched.

 

[Lord]

Nolan has never said his Batman films are realistic. He's stated that he's placed Batman in a world with realistic textures which presupposes that Batman is a fantasy. The problem is people lazily read his comments and then misconstrue them into the concept that Nolan's Batman films are realistic.

Exactly, he's only making the same that others made with their superhero films, making them believable and place with realistic textures, the dark knight even made the Joker a terrorist wich makes sence.

 

[gazzilla8000]

Theoretically, everything in Nolan's Batman films is possible. Unlikey? Yes. Implausible? yes. Impossible? No.

Nolan's Batman exists in a real world. All of his technology is based on existing technology. Hell, even his most absurd tools like the Tumbler and the memory-clothe cape were actually built to be functional in the film.

A magic pit of goo that grants immortality would betray everything Nolan has established in the previous films. It won't happen. And if it is a Lazurus pit, Nolan has changed its functionality.

 

[Laderlappen]

Nolan's movies arent realistic. They just doesnt have any aliens, monsters, and characters with superpowers. Just like many comics.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Ebert said it best that the movies act as if they are realistic, not that they are.

 

[Psycho_Sith]

Well some are saying that there is going to be an explosion there, but we have no idea. As Saint brought up...if it was the LP why would it be in the open? Would there not be a fortress around it? Or caves? But I don't care if it is the LP or not I think it would be fine, but I don't think it is. But we shall see.

...maybe it's some explosion/escape/kill anyone in your way scenario for Bane like V's escape from the labs in V For Vendetta?

I dunno...I don't care if it's a Lazarus Pit or not honestly and I definitely wouldn't mind if it is a pit and it's linked to Bane's venom the way the blue flowers were linked to Scarecrow's fear toxin in BB (as others have suggested).
I'm game whichever way they jump on this one.

On topic though - no, Nolan's Batfilms aren't realistic; they're "based on realism"...there's a difference:

- Gotham is based on real cities, but there is no Gotham or a mega-city as we see it in BB.
- Microwave weapons do exist, but they do not exist or function the way portrayed in BB.
- Burn victims obviously exist, but they can't function the way Two-face did in TDK.
- Grapnels (grappling guns) exist, but not in the compact form or fantastical manner as Bats' gun does.
- Ninja exist, but not in organizations such as the LOS.
...on an on.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Yes and no.

In the sense as saying that it puts a 'serious element' in an 'unrealistic element'.

 

[Psycho_Sith]

Yes and no.

In the sense as saying that it puts a 'serious element' in an 'unrealistic element'.

^^Agreed.

"Chris [Nolan] said that humanity and realism would be the basis of the origin film, and the world of Batman is that of grounded reality. It will be a recognizable, contemporary reality against which an extraordinary heroic figure arises. The goal of the film is to get the audience to care for both Batman and Bruce Wayne. Chris felt the previous four Batman films were exercises in style rather than drama."

-David Goyer

 

[Godzilla2014]

^^Agreed.

"Chris [Nolan] said that humanity and realism would be the basis of the origin film, and the world of Batman is that of grounded reality. It will be a recognizable, contemporary reality against which an extraordinary heroic figure arises. The goal of the film is to get the audience to care for both Batman and Bruce Wayne. Chris felt the previous four Batman films were exercises in style rather than drama."

-David Goyer

I agree. Elements of the films may not be realistic, but they are, for the most part, believable or plausible, which I really love about them.