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

[ArmsHeldOut]

One could actually make a good argument for Batman being superhuman—particularly as he's depicted in comics, animation and video games—even though the character isn't traditionally presented that way and hence perceived as such. Sound strange? Consider this then. Long before the Internet dubbed him Batgod, Batman has been known to perform all manner of improbable, physics-defying feats. And I'm sorry, but no amount of training or natural athleticism will ever permit the human body to swing on a grappling hook between skyscrapers—on a nightly basis, no less! lol What's more, the guy doesn't sleep! lol He taxes his body to its uppermost limits; but rarely ever sleeps! His durability in general is ridiculously heightened. I could go on, but you see what I'm getting at. Even comic book writers have subtly addressed this by classifying him as a peak-human, an obvious attempt to play down/explain away the aforementioned. That the very same term is applied to Marvel's Captain America frankly says it all.

When you take all of this into account with much of what Darth Skywalker already shared, specifically as relates to the character's name, costume, allies, rogues gallery, et al., it's pretty hard to dismiss the obvious superhero component in the DNA of the character.

Don't get me wrong. Of course, we can still suspend our disbelief and accept the verisimilitude that allows for Bruce/Batman to be seen as a man without powers however extraordinary he's portrayed—albeit within reason. Likewise, our capacity to do so is certainly made easier by those works leavened w/ grounded or practical sensibilities (e.g., the TDK trilogy). And yes, for better or worse, he certainly lends himself to psychoanalysis and deconstruction in a way that's different from many other superheroes. That's great. It's, in fact, one of the main reasons he continues to hold appeal for me well past my adolescence and early adulthood. But come on. He's a super...

 

[Eddie Dean]

If Batman used a grappling hook like he does in the movies, his shoulder would be torn out of his socket. For that alone he is superhuman.

 

[SquirrelBallZ]

Who doesn’t like to jump across rooftops late at night? I like to dance on rooftops personally and cast a large shadow next to me for onlookers below. I also like extended my hands to look like talons, wincing and laughing verily at nothing, so much so I am literally heaving from laughter.

It’s like that joke at the end of The killing joke about flashlights and rooftops, how does it go? Well yeah...

 

[metaphysician]

I’m reminded of a quote by CS Lewis: “Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

Quoted for emphasis. This can never be repeated too many times.

 

[MadVillainy]

Quoted for emphasis. This can never be repeated too many times.

Should be painted in the DC Comics offices and handed to everyone trying to adapt DC works

 

[metaphysician]

I guess I just don't agree with your notion that superhero content is inherently childish. 4 quadrant also means that it's not targeted at just kids, the superhero concept is now for everybody. It doesn't belong to kids anymore than it does adults. Those days are long gone.

Some people have the idea that the presence of any "family friendly" content is anathema. In order for something to be "for adults", it must actively have content that makes it unsuitable "for children". Which is absurd and non-sensical, naturally, but some people lack confidence about their own adulthood and desperately fear that the presence of something kid-friendly will "taint" them.

Insert CS Lewis quote here.

 

[metaphysician]

My feelings have always been that Batman is a superhero. He does not have superpowers.....but he is a superhero.

This, exactly. The idea that you need superpowers to be a superhero has. . . never actually been part of the genre. Or rather, the idea *was* introduced into the genre. . . in iron age comics, some 50 or so years after the genre was founded. The entire time prior to that, non-powered crime fighters and adventurers relying on skill, gadgets, and courage have been part of the genre since literally the beginning, and continuously since.

 

[metaphysician]

^I do believe there's serious inconsistency with what fans want.

I remember how Nolan was originally praised for being close to the source material on his first film - yet when he deviated from it later on, suddenly sticking to the source material was 'boring' and not something he should do.

In short, fans will change their tune on a dime because fanboys gonna fanboy.

Honestly, I think its less "fanboys changing on a dime" and more that a large chunk of the fanbase, possibly the majority, doesn't actually have a clear and coherent understanding of what they, individually, actually *do* want or think. Either because they lack the necessary critical skills to formulate their desires and reactions into something cohesive, or because they never even tried to apply said analysis in the first place. Thus, if the same person says too contrary things, its not that they changed their mind, its that they don't realize these statements are contrary ( or don't believe that such is important ).

 

[metaphysician]

Honestly, it's not just with Batman. For some reason the DC Comics franchise in general (the comics, the movies, the animation, the games) seems to attract those people with that type or similar type of thinking.
I'm not sure why. On the whole when looking at the source material, DC isn't more mature than Marvel or vice versa. They're about the same in terms of tone. In fact, Marvel has The Punisher and Wolverine who are way more mature than DC's mainstream heroes imo.

And it's not just the fans but creative types too with some adaptations. I started watching Young Justice seasons 3 and 4 recently and I was a bit shocked by how much blood, sexual references, and very poorly done real world analogies they added compared to the first 2 seasons. I'm not opposed to that kind of stuff at all in live action or animation. Not at all. But it seems like it was added because the creators went like "We're on a streaming service now so let's get dark because...we can" and it comes off a bit try hard and "im14andthisisverydeep" type thinking.
Then even back to the comics, I was reading something about the New 52 and apparently they reimagined the Amazons as rapist, child murderers. I don't know if that's more accurate to the actual Greek myth, but come on that's just weird. Who wants that?

Again I'm not sure why this seems to be the case with DC Comics and their adaptations

My theory: its a "natural" response and state of affairs, at least in the sense that its a very easy, low-energy "failure state" for a creative to fall into. Everyone wants respect, everyone wants to like the stuff they liked, and there is a general ambient sense in the culture that "dark" is more "artistic" than "light". Thus, you get lots of writers and such falling into the habit of going grimdark with their work, especially work traditionally viewed as kid-friendly like comics. And this is true in both Marvel and DC.

Why the difference in movies? Essentially, its not anything special about DC, aside from perhaps Batman being the most popular "dark" characters. Its more than Marvel lucked out with Kevin Feige as creative lead, with him being a rare individual to *not* suffer from CS Lewis Syndrome within the industry. Compare with Sony and the TASM movies, or Fox and the X-Men, Marvel movies can and could *absolutely* fall into the exact same trap.

 

[metaphysician]

By advance, sorry for this long post...

-------​

If I may contribute and for what it's worth, in a book on the history of comics, French author Jean-Paul Jennequin defined superhero characters according to these three main characteristics:
- "Extraordinary Powers" (note that it could be intentional to not say "superpower", allowing incredible capacities to be also considered)
- "Distinctive Costume"
- "Double identity"
There's also an observation that the "superhero begins where the simple hero ends" and that, in a way, one might be tempted to see certain figures from Greek mythology, such as Hercules, as super -hero. But since the term really became commonplace in the 1960s, the author suggest the comic-book medium as an hypothetical another caracteristic.
Anyway, I quite agree with this definition, and see Batman as part of that group.

-------​

Whether these characters are for kids or not, we definitely saw how many of them can be adapted in different way and, as others already said, that's the secret to their longevity.

But to developp a bit more, I would remind that these superheros have been created less than a century ago. Some of the most famous ones are only a few decades old. They have gone through different period, sometimes out-fashioned, sometimes successful. But I think it's only since the late 80s that these characters have, globally, solidified their presence in pop-culture by managing to stay continuously relevant since then. It's a little more obvious outside of the US as superhero comics have never had the same cultural place as there. You can more easily identify the start of that new golden age with shows like Batman TAS, the 90s X-Men and Spider-Man cartoons, and these very same characters simultanously investing theaters since then.
The result of this continued success is that, for the first time, a large proportion of the audiences around the world, from youngters to people in their forties, have grown up with these characters being an important part of their cultural baggage. And so, for the first time, there's a new market to catch, by proposing more mature stories with these characters to that older part of the audience now became significant.

My point is that while "light stories" will likely remain the main "way of doing things" of the genre, we'll likely see also more and more "adult-oriented" productions as audiences will getting older.

-------​

Coming back to Batman, beyond the secret identities, costumes, etc., the character has the advantage of having his roots in the film noir genre, which makes it easier for him to evolve in more adult stories, as we all see those past years. The next challenge will indeed to see the more fantastic part of that universe being adapted with that more serious and mature tone.

The consensus is that you have to absolutely "ground" things to achive that. After Nolan films, many people understand this as "using realism to make believe", and that's a totally valid approach, and pure science fiction in the sense of sufficiently rooting the world you're creating in our reality to help the suspension of disbelief. But I think we're forgetting too quickly how you can also "ground" something emotionnally.
For decades, fantastic literature and cinema had already been making that bridge between seemingly juvenile and ridiculous concepts and touching and mature stories. Gimmicks aside, most of the characters in Batman's world are built around personal tragedies, archetypes, which give the franchise an incredible universality and flexibility to adapt. In my opinion, all it takes is a director working in this way, whose vision allows him to use the visual language of the fantastic genre while taking care to keep the dramatic core of these characters central. Simply put, like always if the writing is solid, then the story will have the potential to speak to everyone, no matter what. The Fly is often cited, and rightly so, because this film effectively grounded its story, both conceptually and emotionnally. But really, Matt Reeves has already shown he can work towards that in his two Planet of the Apes films.

What strikes me about what we've seen of The Batman is the visual stylization. Of course, this choice is not exclusive to a certain tone or genre, and the rules of the world created here could very well remain the same as in Seven, as there's visual similarities. But it's also a choice that could definitely help if the director wants to bring more "out there" ideas later, at least visually.
That's not to say every fantastic Batman's character will show up or work within that framework set by Reeves. But if you ask me, from what seems to be his sensibility, I think he definitely left himself an open door to go a little further than what Nolan has allowed himself to touch in the comicbookness of this franchise..

Lots of interesting stuff here. I would specifically like to call out that the original definition says "Double Identity" and not "Secret Identity". I approve, because IMO the specifically *secret* ID is less a key requirement and more a bit of a cargo cult add-on. Its less about hiding who you "really" are, and more about taking on a specifically larger than life persona, either in addition to, or replacing, your older 'ordinary' persona.

 

[SquirrelBallZ]

My theory: its a "natural" response and state of affairs, at least in the sense that its a very easy, low-energy "failure state" for a creative to fall into. Everyone wants respect, everyone wants to like the stuff they liked, and there is a general ambient sense in the culture that "dark" is more "artistic" than "light". Thus, you get lots of writers and such falling into the habit of going grimdark with their work, especially work traditionally viewed as kid-friendly like comics. And this is true in both Marvel and DC.

Why the difference in movies? Essentially, its not anything special about DC, aside from perhaps Batman being the most popular "dark" characters. Its more than Marvel lucked out with Kevin Feige as creative lead, with him being a rare individual to *not* suffer from CS Lewis Syndrome within the industry. Compare with Sony and the TASM movies, or Fox and the X-Men, Marvel movies can and could *absolutely* fall into the exact same trap.

Batman is almost like an archetype in the superhero genre though, at this point. It’s pretty given he has been the inspiration behind many characters and villains. I do not think he is grim dark exactly, I think his creation was pretty hard to tackle and come close to duplication, there are not as many characters who have close. In the comic industry it is like Batman wonder man, superman and Spider-Man I believe who are the most original, and creative and we’re inspired by near strokes of genius (though at the right time as well) I believe

 

[SquirrelBallZ]

To be fair the whole obsession and particular fascination with having to always make Batman more “realistic” is a little grating and irritating at times. He is essentially a fictional character thus I done dunnit comprehend the ceaseless fascination.

 

[Dr.]

I’m no DC comics scholar. But it seems to me that for most of his 80-year existence, Batman has occupied the fantasy sub-genre. E.g., at least some of his foes are supernatural in aspect. And, of course, any time he teams up with Superman, Wonder Woman or the rest of the Justice League, he segues into fantasy by definition. Thus, the publication record and “dominant representation” argue against a more “realistic” approach.

On the other hand… there’s “originalism” (to borrow a legal term). Before Robin, before partnering with Superman, before the more fantastical villains (all basically business strategies to increase sales) and before the Comics Code Authority, there was a version of Batman as he was first conceived. I.e., Batman inhabits a more-or-less normal, non-supernatural milieu. So this argument for “realism” is simply reclaiming and respecting the original source.

Now, “dominant representation” is (perhaps?) the stronger case. That said, “originalism” isn’t some kind of blasphemy. (And it would be odd, definitionally, to decry returning to the “original” as postmodern or revisionist. ) By my reckoning, both iterations of Batman — though distinct — are entirely legitimate.

 

[C Prometheus]

I’m no DC comics scholar. But it seems to me that for most of his 80-year existence, Batman has occupied the fantasy sub-genre. E.g., at least some of his foes are supernatural in nature. And, of course, any time he teams up with Superman, Wonder Woman or the rest of the Justice League, he segues into fantasy by definition. Thus, the publication record and “dominant representation” argue against a more “realistic” approach.

On the other hand… there’s “originalism” (to borrow a legal term). Before Robin, before partnering with Superman, before the more fantastical villains (all basically business strategies to increase sales) and before the Comics Code Authority, there was a version of Batman as he was first conceived. I.e., Batman inhabits a more-or-less normal, non-supernatural milieu. So this argument for “realism” is simply reclaiming and respecting the original source.

Now, “dominant representation” is (perhaps?) the stronger case. That said, “originalism” isn’t some kind of blasphemy. (And it would be odd, definitionally, to decry returning to the “original” as postmodern or revisionist. ) By my reckoning, both iterations of Batman — though distinct — are entirely legitimate.

I couldn't agree more!

Batman is a superhero, but there's a multitude of different directions and interpretations available to the character out there, be it in a realist or fantastical form. Be it something aimed for the youngest of kids, to teens, to young adults or all ages across the board. That doesn't make him superior to other superhero characters by any means, but I would argue that broader scope of imagination allotted did play a part in Batman's sheer level of popularity across numerous demographics and is something that I'd love to see happen for other superheroes onscreen.

bad place, just look at the success that Marvel had recently with the Immortal Hulk run in the comics that opted to revert back to the horror influences that informed the original comics. I quite enjoy the MCU and can appreciate how Kevin Feige's formula has resulted in the overwhelming majority of its entries to generally be consistently good, entertaining blockbusters that emulate the feeling of a mainline comic universe with its intricate connections within itself. But does everything need to be a comedy? Why not give Hulk fans a horror-inspired take on the character onscreen?

Or how about the last two runs of Silver Surfer from Dan Slott and Donny Cates that couldn't be more stylistically further from each other if they tried? One a marriage of romcom with Doctor Who-style adventure fueled by 1960's pop art, the other a melancholic, surrealist sci-fi character study. Both comics are quite enjoyable reads, but I do think you could argue that Cates' Silver Surfer: Black run is tonally closer to the original Stan Lee comics. Yet I can't help but suspect that whenever we see the Surfer in the MCU, Feige and Co. will most likely opt to lift more influence from the Slott run than the Cates or Lee runs.

Like I've said in previous posts, I think that Batman's versatility in various interpretations is going to be given a lot of focus in the coming years. Obviously we have Reeves and Pattinson doing their thing with Batman in the new isolated universe, while Keaton is coming back in the more fantastical and interwoven DCEU and the animated side will see Batman: Caped Crusader as an all-ages spiritual successor to BTAS and more seasons of the Harley Quinn show as the raunchy, parodic adult comedy.

Now if we could only just get a modern live action reimagining of Batman '66 going...

 

[TheGDBatman]

bad place, just look at the success that Marvel had recently with the Immortal Hulk run in the comics that opted to revert back to the horror influences that informed the original comics. I quite enjoy the MCU and can appreciate how Kevin Feige's formula has resulted in the overwhelming majority of its entries to generally be consistently good, entertaining blockbusters that emulate the feeling of a mainline comic universe with its intricate connections within itself. But does everything need to be a comedy? Why not give Hulk fans a horror-inspired take on the character onscreen?

Or how about the last two runs of Silver Surfer from Dan Slott and Donny Cates that couldn't be more stylistically further from each other if they tried? One a marriage of romcom with Doctor Who-style adventure fueled by 1960's pop art, the other a melancholic, surrealist sci-fi character study. Both comics are quite enjoyable reads, but I do think you could argue that Cates' Silver Surfer: Black run is tonally closer to the original Stan Lee comics. Yet I can't help but suspect that whenever we see the Surfer in the MCU, Feige and Co. will most likely opt to lift more influence from the Slott run than the Cates or Lee runs.

Just a quick aside, but I do feel like Marvel tends to make movies in service of the General Audience as opposed to being in service of the character. As a result, you get a more formulaic approach that is generally pleasing, but limits your ability to dive into different elements that make these characters so rich. Hoping that starts to change with Moon Knight onward.

It's also one thing that I love about The Batman (from what we've seen). Reeves appears to have crafted a movie in service of the character and built it out from there. It feels like a drastically different approach from how we've seen movies done from both Marvel (and DC to an extent).

And the fact that we have both a grounded approach (RPatz) and a fantastical approach (MK) at the same time.... *chef's kiss*. Two very different approaches that appeal to both sides of the spectrum.

 

[emielaen]

Hoping that starts to change with Moon Knight onward.

I feel like this sentence is uttered before every new MCU project and it doesn’t really change a ton. Lol they’re more worried about how things connect. That’s not to say that they just botch character work left and right (I haven’t seen any of the shows and the films have always been meh for me) but the world and what’s next seems to matter more than what’s going on in the moment w the MCU.

 

[The Batman]

On the other hand… there’s “originalism” (to borrow a legal term). Before Robin, before partnering with Superman, before the more fantastical villains (all basically business strategies to increase sales) and before the Comics Code Authority, there was a version of Batman as he was first conceived. I.e., Batman inhabits a more-or-less normal, non-supernatural milieu. So this argument for “realism” is simply reclaiming and respecting the original source.

I know you said you weren't a DC scholar, but you don't have to be to know that this ain't accurate.

That Pre Robin/Superman/Comics Code Batman existed for about 11 issues...and in over half of those issues, he's dealing with fantastical stuff:

Detective Comics 29 & 30: Fights Dr. Death, often cited as the first supervillain Batman faces.

Detective Comics 31 & 32: Fights actual vampires.

Detective Comics 33: Fights a guy who flies around in a giant Dirigible that fires red beams.

Detective Comics 34: Batman fights a guy who can remove people's facial features, leaving their face completely blank.

Detective Comics 36: Hugo Strange's first appearance, where he uses a device that can fog the entire city.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Detective Comics 34: Batman fights a guy who can remove people's facial features, leaving their face completely blank.

When I first came across that story I thought that was the first story for the Question.

 

[MadVillainy]

Marvel and DC should do a superhero trade. DC gives up Green Arrow and Black Canary and gets The Punisher back. Since so many DC fans want "dark" "adult" and "grounded".

When it comes to major heroes from the big 2, I don't think you get any more dark and grounded than the concept of The Punisher

 

[BMW 224]

Marvel and DC should do a superhero trade. DC gives up Green Arrow and Black Canary and gets The Punisher back. Since so many DC fans want "dark" "adult" and "grounded".

When it comes to major heroes from the big 2, I don't think you get any more dark and grounded than the concept of The Punisher

Marvel has always been more dark grounded than DC.

Some people find it more relatable but I've always found it more cynical personally.

Regardless Marvel presents the world as it is and has heros that struggle to be heros in a world that's not that different than ours.

DC presents the world as is but with heros that push it forward to be better with the villains representing the people who don't want it to change.

 

[MadVillainy]

Not sure why I'm quoted but ok cool

 

[BMW 224]

Not sure why I'm quoted but ok cool

Sorry I thought you were pointing out that DC isn't all dark and grounded in the comics world like some people believe due to films.

 

[MadVillainy]

Sorry I thought you were pointing out that DC isn't all dark and grounded in the comics world like some people believe due to films.

Nah that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
I was just making a bad joke. Because, I said this a few pages back, for some reason there's a section of DC fans that only want dark, gritty, more bloody, and grounded heroes. Seemingly under the assumption that makes it more mature and therefore better.
And in my mind, when it comes to the big marquee characters of Marvel and DC, I don't think you get more bloody and dark then the concept of The Punisher. So I made the joke of DC trading heroes to get The Punisher from Marvel

 

[OnLeatherWings]

The word 'grounded' causes some sort of irate agitation in me, at this point.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I remembered that animated movie that is supposed to be set between Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, one segment has Killer Croc, another has Batman running on a fast moving train avoiding Deadshot bullets to punch his jaw and keep holding him for a confession.

Not what I think of when the word realism comes to mind.

And in my mind, when it comes to the big marquee characters of Marvel and DC, I don't think you get more bloody and dark then the concept of The Punisher. So I made the joke of DC trading heroes to get The Punisher from Marvel

In the last 20 or something years they made some... interesting changes to Punisher status quo that make me want to see how people with the thought "Dark and realism is the way to go" react to them.

Old time travelling cosmic Ghost Rider Punisher who befriends Galactus and tells him what's best for his diet.