Arkham Asylum: The Thread for Debating the Insane Topic of Batman Realism

[DKDetective]

In this thread, feel free to discuss the "realism" of Matt Reeves's interpretation of Batman and Gotham. You may compare it to other adaptations and incarnations and discuss how the "realism" or "grounded" nature of this interpretation affects plots, characters, and other elements of this film and potential sequels.

 

[Invader Joker]

Press tour is about to start in about 4 weeks. I hope someone directly asks hom about this and specifically the possibility of Robin, Clayface, etc to settle this once and for all.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'd personally rather they kept this series as grounded as possible, and let whatever the hell is going on over in the DCEU handle the weirder stuff.

No interest in Robin. Don't see this Batman putting a child in danger. Dick Grayson as a ward is fine, but no more.

There are some of the rogues gallery I'd rather they stayed away from, like Clayface, Man Bat and Ivy. But would love to see takes on characters like Mat Hatter, Hugo Strange, Court Of Owls, Scarecrow etc. They'd all fit in with Reeves's sensibilities for this project.

I firmly believe Batman is always at his most successful on screen when he is kept as grounded as possible. And kept in solo projects, away from the more fantastical stuff, and characters.

That's why I've been so pleased with what Reeves is doing so far. He's making a grounded, mature version of Batman that embraces as much of the lore as is possible within that framework. I see no reason why that should ever change.

 

[Gothamsknight]

At this point, I think both Nolan and Reeves have a sense of realism, but they're different forms. in some ways, Nolans may seem more realistic and grounded, but there's also really heightened things that happen too. Gotham, in particular, is similar to how Richard Donners Metropolis was in Superman. It's a city (New York) that looks like our own, similar to TDK trilogy. all the tech and stuff gives off a james bond aesthetic, but even stuff in those movies aren't totally realistic. Reeves seems realistic too, but he's giving it a more gothic/stylish twist where Gotham looks like a combo of cities we may see in real life, but in almost a dream esque type of reality. Everything else feels grounded and somewhat plausible so far, but it also feels different than Nolans type of realism.

I don't think one is more realistic than the other, from what I've seen.

 

[Rick190293]

Yeah, Reevesverse is more and more looking like the perfect blend between grounded and stylized. That's the versatility of Bats, he can be the best of both worlds.

 

[Mindreaper21]

I’d love for this trilogy to remain realistic with style while also being open to the idea of what could be possible in the real world. It would open the door for other other villains that are supernatural, but can work if modified. Characters like Bane, Ivy, Freeze and Croc can be very possible to a degree without turning them into completely different characters.

 

[cryptic name]

I always liked how Richard Donner described his approach to Superman; realism doesn’t matter, but believability does.

 

[shauner111]

I just don't want to see CG monsters. If Killer Croc was a cannibal with somewhat of a skin condition, that's perfect. If Bane takes steroids and is built like an old school pro wrestler, great. But I don't want to see him getting bigger and bigger on screen. He should look like a real life steroid abuser. Poison Ivy just worships nature, she's not covered in green paint, she can't control plants. Mad Monk wouldn't be a vampire but a satanic cult leader who worships something that may not exist. Talons would be human assassins with owl masks, not undead assassins. Man Bat as a Batman imposter, not a giant CGI man with wings after a science experiment. Clayface is a master of disguise who gives off the illusion that he's a shapeshifter but he's not.

 

[Rick190293]

Both Killer Croc and Clayface could have serious skin conditions. Freeze is easy, a scientist obsessed with cryogenic. You see, there's always room for adaptations.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I can buy into the idea that a billionaire playboy spends his nights driving around the city, dressing up like a bat and beating up criminals.

but if he were to, let’s say, bring a child/teenager into his crusade? No sir. That is where I simply must draw a line. Just too unrealistic. But I can totally buy into everything else though, no problem.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I am going to get on my soap box here. Bare with me.

*ahem*

I don't want lame "human" versions of Man-Bat and Clayface. Either give me the actual versions of those characters (where it would be required to use CGI to do them) or don't do them at all.

I don't get the desire to do the same type of Batman movie over and over again, and do the same type of villains over and over again, and strip everything sci fi or fantasy out of the character just because the Joel Schumacher movies were campy. I don't want a "human" version of Mr. Freeze. I want the guy with the sci fi suit and freezing gun. I don't want a human being who is called Clayface because he can wear disguises. I want a shape shifting deformed monster. Can we stop being afraid to push boundaries? This isn't 2005 anymore. To rephrase a quote from Batman Begins: "After nearly 20 years, I think we can allow ourselves to stop thinking about 'what would Chris Nolan do'."

I can't wait for the day when we can finally get villains like Clayface and Man-Bat, and a Batman with white lenses on his cowl, and the Batman movie franchise can actually feel modern instead of stuck in the late 80s and early 2000s in terms of adapting comic book characters to the screen.

 

[BMW 224]

I can buy into the idea that a billionaire playboy spends his nights driving around the city, dressing up like a bat and beating up criminals.

but if he were to, let’s say, bring a child/teenager into his crusade? No sir. That is where I simply must draw a line. Just too unrealistic. But I can totally buy into everything else though, no problem.

That's prescily why I want to see it though.

The challenge of bringing in Robin and actually making it make sense and addressing every cristsism would be something to behold.

Its honestly something that know one had really done before in live action.

That beautiful feeling I got seeing Batman Begins completely changing how I see Batman making believe for the first time that Bruce Wayne could be sane and winning me over on Evey issue I had with his orgin.

I want that for Robin.

And I feel like Matt Reeves could do it.

 

[shauner111]

White lenses would be stupid and take away the actors biggest tool. No thanks.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

"The eyes are the actors biggest tool" This argument of course ignores the other tools that great actors have in their arsenal, like body language and gestures.

Yes, we should totally keep Batman stuck in the past in terms of how his cowl looks on screen, because god forbid the actor might have to rely on other things to act other then move his eyes around to convey emotion, because that is the only way actor's can act!

 

[DeadlyWest]

Honestly I'm of the mindset that whatever Matt Reeves wants to do, no matter how whacky of a villain it is, I'm all for it. If he can find a way to take the Riddler, an extremely flamboyant narcissist and turn him into an anarchistic vigilante comparable to the Zodiac Killer while still keeping enough elements of that flamboyant narcissist that it's still recognizable as the Riddler, I'm sure he can do something similar with other villains like Clayface. What ultimately matters is just if Matt wants to do it or not. If anyone can figure out a way to essentially get the best of both worlds, Matt has clearly proven it's him.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

That's prescily why I want to see it though.

The challenge of bringing in Robin and actually making it make sense and addressing every cristsism would be something to behold.

Its honestly something that know one had really done before in live action.

That beautiful feeling I got seeing Batman Begins completely changing how I see Batman making believe for the first time that Bruce Wayne could be sane and winning me over on Evey issue I had with his orgin.

I want that for Robin.

And I feel like Matt Reeves could do it.

Oh I’m just playing around lol. I wanna see Robin more than anyone, I’m just poking fun at the people who can suspend disbelief for Batman but draw the line at Robin

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Batman is a human being who uses gadgets and technology and training to beat up criminals. Robin basically uses all the same resources and training, given to him from Batman himself. I think I am more than capable of suspending my disbelief and going with it.

 

[J.Drangal]

Whether the actor can develop body language without his actual eyes or not, I personally just don't like white lenses on live action. I may be alone on this, but to me, it's pure comics art langage, like the blue tint in the hair. And I do think all of this looks absolutely fantastic there. But in movies, whether it's actual lenses on the actor's eyes (I lived through the goth fashions of the early 2000s...never forget ), a special effect like in Deadpool, or whatever Nolan did on that brief TDK scene, I just don't think it adds anything...

I do like what Burton did though, in scenes like when Vale is brought to the Batcave, with his Batman completely in the dark and just a little light on his eyes. It seemed like a nice nod to that iconic feature.

 

[shauner111]

"The eyes are the actors biggest tool" This argument of course ignores the other tools that great actors have in their arsenal, like body language and gestures.

Yes, we should totally keep Batman stuck in the past in terms of how his cowl looks on screen, because god forbid the actor might have to rely on other things to act other then move his eyes around to convey emotion, because that is the only way actor's can act!

I said the actors "biggest" tool is their eyes. How does that ignore the rest of their tools like body language as you say? I didn't say it was the only tool, but their biggest. Especially for any masked character who's face is mostly covered. This isn't animation. It's a different medium. Batman is also not as physically animated as Spider-Man or as much of a mouthpiece so Maguire, Garfield and Holland can get away with a lot there.

But I get it if comic book and animated fans want to see it. I'm not saying I can't warm up to it if it looks cool. I just think it's a bit dumb to take away the intensity and intellect and emotion that have been such an important aspect of our favourite Batmen's performances. I fear it'll come off robotic with the lenses.

 

[Mani-Man]

Wow, i didnt expect the discussion about what exactly Reeves world is, to get so heated that it was neccessary to lock the discussion into one thread...because in the end its all about a guy dressing up as a Bat and beating up people, solving crimes, saving a city.

But i think its a good way to make sure discussion about certain things dont derail other threads.

As for the topic, look, we got Nolan...we got already 3 movies with villains that are more grounded, and afflecks batman movie wasnt even supposed to have a batman villain in the focus.

So **** it...i want supernatural villains for once.
Yeah i know the base of Batman being just a human...but so what?
He is still the rich guy who has enough training that he can take out special forces without breaking a sweat.
He still jumps from buildings trusting that his expensive equipment works etc.

Give me a 8 foot talking crocodile for once, give me a guy in a cryo suit, give me Monsters, Metahumans.

I know the more grounded approach works fine for batman, dont get me wrong.
Im happy with what reeves does with riddler, i would be absolutely happy with a Black Mask, with Zsasz etc...but this character has such a huge and diverse rogues gallery...use it.

For Batman its possible to create a world that can work with both worlds.
I just would love to see a live action batman world that allows itself to dive into the supernatural aspect more.

 

[blackmidi]

I'd personally rather they kept this series as grounded as possible, and let whatever the hell is going on over in the DCEU handle the weirder stuff.

No interest in Robin. Don't see this Batman putting a child in danger. Dick Grayson as a ward is fine, but no more.

There are some of the rogues gallery I'd rather they stayed away from, like Clayface, Man Bat and Ivy. But would love to see takes on characters like Mat Hatter, Hugo Strange, Court Of Owls, Scarecrow etc. They'd all fit in with Reeves's sensibilities for this project.

I firmly believe Batman is always at his most successful on screen when he is kept as grounded as possible. And kept in solo projects, away from the more fantastical stuff, and characters.

That's why I've been so pleased with what Reeves is doing so far. He's making a grounded, mature version of Batman that embraces as much of the lore as is possible within that framework. I see no reason why that should ever change.

EXACTLY my feelings on the whole thing!

 

[FunkMiller]

Batman is a human being who uses gadgets and technology and training to beat up criminals. Robin basically uses all the same resources and training, given to him from Batman himself. I think I am more than capable of suspending my disbelief and going with it.

I just don’t see, in any version of Batman where he’s presented as a serious vigilante, the worlds greatest detective, and a man bent on saving and protecting other human beings… him willingly putting a child in harm’s way. It just doesn’t work.

However, a lighter, less serious, more pulpy Batman story that isn’t trying to stay as grounded and believable? Yep, Robin’s fine.

 

[C Prometheus]

I'd personally rather they kept this series as grounded as possible, and let whatever the hell is going on over in the DCEU handle the weirder stuff.

No interest in Robin. Don't see this Batman putting a child in danger. Dick Grayson as a ward is fine, but no more.

There are some of the rogues gallery I'd rather they stayed away from, like Clayface, Man Bat and Ivy. But would love to see takes on characters like Mat Hatter, Hugo Strange, Court Of Owls, Scarecrow etc. They'd all fit in with Reeves's sensibilities for this project.

I firmly believe Batman is always at his most successful on screen when he is kept as grounded as possible. And kept in solo projects, away from the more fantastical stuff, and characters.

That's why I've been so pleased with what Reeves is doing so far. He's making a grounded, mature version of Batman that embraces as much of the lore as is possible within that framework. I see no reason why that should ever change.

It's especially baffling to me that some folks are so eager for the Reeves films to dive headlong into the fantastical when we still have the mainline DCEU in play and that world already has the stage set for far more nutty things to pop up there. Especially when we're now getting strong indicators that the Batfamily and other Gotham-based heroes will be popping up in new films there in upcoming projects.

Because here's the sort of "first world" problem that comes with Batman having the absolute best Rogues Gallery in comic history; There's too many of them!!!

And I don't mean that as a negative in general- in fact, the wide scope of awesome villains that Batman has in his mythos is key to the success of most of media outlets with the character (comics, television, video games). But it gets significantly harder to pull off when you're adapting the character to film, because each individual movie takes so long and results in iterations of the character lasting for 10-ish years or so at best.

As a result, you have to be smart with how you handle the Rogues Gallery. Which ones do you pick? Why? How many is too many per film? And if you put in a monster truck full of the villains in a single film, it typically will only work if you reduce most of the villains to small roles and treat one or two as the central antagonists.

So let Reeves stick to his more grounded, psychological takes on villains of his choice as the primary foes that Rob's Batman will be fighting against in his trilogy and related HBO Max series, while Batgirl, Nightwing, Black Canary and whoever else might show up down the line in the upcoming DCEU films take on other villains like Clayface or Man-Bat.

And I'll say it until I run out of air; save Ivy for a Harley Quinn project! Give us that superpowered take on Thelma & Louise, damnit!

 

[antsman41]

Reeves made you believe in a cgi ape for a whole trilogy, had more weight and circumstance than most franchise leads.

He can do Clayface within this template he’s built for The Batman. /debate

 

[MadVillainy]

I think Reeves CAN do supernatural/harder sci fi stuff. Save for The Pallbearer All his directed movies before Batman (Cloverfield, the 2 Apes movies, Let Me In) have been hard sci fi/fantasy. But like "realistic" or "grounded" hard sci fi if that makes sense...Like obviously they're very supernatural things but they still come off as grounded as the concepts could be.

That being said will he do it? I'm not sure. I hope so. We got TDKT which was the grounded take and that wrapped up just 10 years ago. Let's get laughing gas Joker, Mr. Freeze, etc.

Either way I'm sure the movie will be good. I've loved, not just liked LOVED every Reeves movie I've seen (which is all of them except The Pallbearer)