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

[Eddie Dean]

This is why Superman works alone

 

[BatLobster]

I have to say, based on what we've seen so far, I have an extremely hard time seeing this Batman standing alongside Superman...without them darkening the tone of Superman quite a bit, which is exactly the problem they ran into last time, IMO. Just this color palette alone has nothing to do with Superman IMO.

 

[Gothamsknight]

A throwaway line, maybe. But it's there. It's deliberate.

WB is planting seeds that let them keep the door open in case they want to use little eggs like that to build upon, is my guess.

It'll probably just end up being referenced. Similar to how Kilmers Batman mentioned Metropolis in Batman Forever.

 

[WatchProtect]

I don't really need Superman to be here but I would like some Batman Metas. Not all, really the only Two I want are Ivy and/or Man-Bat

 

[antsman41]

I don't really need Superman to be here but I would like some Batman Metas. Not all, really the only Two I want are Ivy and/or Man-Bat

This. Reeves' world is Batman only, keep it like that. Keaton's will have the DCEU treatment...

Leave our sexy little Pattinson (sci-fi villains hopefully, though in sequels) Batman alone.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't really need Superman to be here but I would like some Batman Metas. Not all, really the only Two I want are Ivy and/or Man-Bat

Mr Freeze says "why are you leaving me out in the cold?" *ahem*

 

[WatchProtect]

Mr Freeze says "why are you leaving me out in the cold?" *ahem*

Eh Freeze isn't really a Meta, I purposely excluded him. The only thing "impossible " about him is having to live in below zero and tbh that can be foregod as long as he still has the Gun, and his wife.

 

[poncholuke]

Just because Lexcorp exists doesn't mean that Superman exists, it can just be a meaningless easter egg.

Why would they namedrop lexcorp twice (this + the newspaper, that also mentioned "you know who in the sky")? Lexcorp is not part of the batman mythos, they could have added any gotham-related industry yet they're going out of their way to throw little hints of the existence of a larger dc universe, and one where an alien exists. Weird thing to do idk.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Because it’s a fun little thing to do.

 

[BMW 224]

Can't wait for THE BATMAN V THE SUPERMAN !

 

[poncholuke]

I don't think reeves will have anything to do with the next superman movie, he has a bunch of batman related projects at hand and they're all bat exclusive. I don't even think he planned these easter eggs. But I do believe whoever is in charge of the new superman is gonna put him in the same universe as reeves' batman, and those little hints are there to show this possibility. WB is not That stupid, they know dceu is in the shirtter and no one cares for the snyderverse much less snyderverse superman.

 

[metaphysician]

Eh Freeze isn't really a Meta, I purposely excluded him. The only thing "impossible " about him is having to live in below zero and tbh that can be foregod as long as he still has the Gun, and his wife.

"Being able to survive environments that would flat out kill a normal human" is absolutely a superhuman power. The fact that it comes with a major downside doesn't change this, there are lots of superhumans ( especially villains ) who have crippling side effects to their powers, or view them as a curse.

 

[WatchProtect]

"Being able to survive environments that would flat out kill a normal human" is absolutely a superhuman power. The fact that it comes with a major downside doesn't change this, there are lots of superhumans ( especially villains ) who have crippling side effects to their powers, or view them as a curse.

Him being after to survive Is the same thing as what I said lol. I'm just saying that doesn't define him, he's still do able if you didn't want meta humans. Ivy and Man-Bat are two that are pretty defined by their powers. Freeze on the other hand doesn't need the "survive in freezing temperatures " thing to work.

 

[Invader Joker]

'The Batman': Matt Reeves Is Interested In Including a "Grounded" Mr. Freeze In Potential Sequels


‘The Batman’: Robert Pattinson on His Love of ‘Death in the Family’ and Why He’d Like to Use the Story In a Sequel

Reeves notes that he too, like Pattinson, "likes Death in the Family," further expanding that he follows the idea of "approaching some of those stories, and [thinking], how can we do this in a way that feels fresh and grounded in a way... look at that scary thing and see if there's a way to do it". The question, he says, is whether they'll be too scared. He concludes: "But I think we should try."

"In my view, I just feel drawn to finding the grounded version of everything. So to me it would be a challenge in an interesting way to try and figure out how that could happen, even the idea of something like Mr. Freeze, that such a great story, right? I think there's actually a grounded version of that story, which could be really powerful and could be really great. So, I love the fantastical side of Batman, but this iteration, obviously, while being, to me, I think it is very comics faithful, but I don't think that this one is necessarily, it doesn't lean as hard into the fantastical, I guess. But I think to me what would be interesting would be to try and unwind the fantastical and see, well, how could that make sense here? And so that's kind of my view, how I see it."

So there we have it. Reeves is interested in elements like Mr. Freeze and Robin but only if he finds a really grounded way to adapt them. He's not interested in leaning too hard on the fantastical, so this probably rules out characters like Clayface too unless he also reinvents him a lot.

 

[Detective Conan]

So there we have it. Reeves is interested in elements like Mr. Freeze and Robin but only if he finds a really grounded way to adapt them. He's not interested in leaning too hard on the fantastical, so this probably rules out characters like Clayface too unless he also reinvents him a lot.

He can always try and do a version that’s similar to Golden Age Clayface who was just an regular human actor who turned serial killer with no shapeshifting abilities.

But obviously many fans would want the fantastical Clayface, where he is a shapeshifter blob, and frankly we’ve already have a serial killer in this universe with Riddler so I guess we should rule out this character entirely.

 

[Jekecy]

I don't think Reeves recent comments illuminated much in the debate of how he's going to take these fantastical concepts. It's well in line with how this film has been presented.

The very fact he's even name dropping these characters and is firm on how faithful he is to the source material, already tells me he's not Nolan 2.0 here.

I don't imagine:
Ivy having full mind-control over all plant life to be used as weapons on a mass scale
Freeze requiring a special suit to survive while wielding an ice beam gun that can form ice walls, platforms, etc.
Clayface being a literal clay monster who can morph his body into any shape and size

I can imagine:
Ivy being in-tune with some species of plant life, which itself may exhibit a higher form of deadly sentience
Freeze wearing a suit for specialized (criminal) activities, including a hand-tool which deals with liquid nitrogen
Clayface as a master of disguise who has uncanny abilities in perfectly replicating the faces and voices of others

If reality/fantasy was on a 0-10 scale, Nolan is around a 4-5. Reeves can move up to a 6-7. That's still significant.

We can't just take the modern age of comics into account. Many of these characters (even the ones I've named) all started out comparatively pedestrian in their original incarnations. It wasn't until comics exploded in their expansive universe that creators felt required to lean harder and harder into the fantasy.

The only thing I would rule out in the Reeves-verse is the bonkers sci-fi stuff. I'm not betting on extraterrestrials or gods coming into the fray. But (almost) anything else below that tier, are concepts which are on level with trying to make sentient speaking apes not look absurd in a reality-based drama.

 

[GothamCity]

But why must be everything be realistic in the Batman movies these days?
Is it really more interesting if it is i more realistic, At some point people want to see the fantastical versions and they say "thats the way it has to be"

 

[boba loba]

There is so much people in denial after today, lmao.

 

[J.Drangal]

I always thought Mr.Freeze could have been adapted into the world of the TDK trilogy without too much trouble. Nolan could have found an angle.

I think people are more than often fooled by his relative visual austerity, confusing it for some kind of a 100% realism paradigm. But what he’s really doing is pure Science-Fiction. He takes crazy concepts but roots them enough in our reality, echoing real-life theory and technology, to make us accept it, believe in it. A cloning machine, a multi-dimensional tesseract, and even a machine for traveling through dream or time, they all worked in what seems to be our world.
Sure, that doesn’t mean that every characters from the Batman mythology could have worked through his lense, but it was funny how back then, just after Begins, people thought there was no way to see a green hair Joker wearing a purple suit in the sequel, and yet...
If Nolan managed to transform Bane and his strengh enhancer venom into a pain blocking device allowing some capacity boost, then he could have piece together a Mr.Freeze having, for example, the need to maintain his body under a certain temperature in order to slow down an illness or something along those lines.

What matters the most anyway in "grounding" things, more than selling some sort of logistics possibilities, is to make the character's motivation believable. If you can relate to the drama, then the rest is almost anecdotical. This is why obody had problem with a perfectly accurate Two-Face in what was supposed to be a hyper realistic movie.
With Reeves under the spotlight now, Batman and his world are between the hands of someone who definitely knows how to make audiences care about his characters. Even if they are talking monkeys (the characters, not the audience... hum). With Mr. Freeze already having such a powerful dramatic background, this new director souldn't have much trouble introducing him in a sequel if he ever wants to.
Also, last point but quite relevant in my opinion, the fact that his art direction is quite stylized is a true bonus. This should allows more fantastical characters to at least not look too out of place visually. This is where what could be considered an advantage over Nolan likely lies, when it comes to adapting certain characters.

 

[Closerframe]

But why must be everything be realistic in the Batman movies these days?
Is it really more interesting if it is i more realistic, At some point people want to see the fantastical versions and they say "thats the way it has to be"

Because he serves as a great contrast to the more “fantastical” superheroes we see everywhere else. Literally, everything else DC is doing is more akin to the comics in one way or another. This version of Batman looks like it’s far darker than Nolan did, while also bringing a different type of realism. I trust Reeves completely to push himself while also delivering something unfamiliar.

 

[Mani-Man]

But why must be everything be realistic in the Batman movies these days?
Is it really more interesting if it is i more realistic, At some point people want to see the fantastical versions and they say "thats the way it has to be"

Im with you on that, i trust reeves fully, but im in general not a fan of this attempts to "ground" comic book characters too much.
With how far we have come with CGI, filmmaking etc...i would love to see a 8 foot Killer Croc, manbat etc down the line.

 

[Rick190293]

I'm so happy that we might see Freeze, or even more fantastical villains, being grounded but still faithful to their original sources. Everything is an adaptation. It doesn't need to be a perfect translation, nor a complete deviation. Nolan gave us that, but I got a feeling Reeves is doing even better, theatrically speaking.

 

[metaphysician]

I increasingly hate the entire term "grounded". Depending on its intended meaning, its either mostly irrelevant ( because even the most fantastic movie is grounded when its characters follow identifiable and realistic human emotions and motivations ), or else its limiting and often hypocritical ( because the pursuit of realism is rather selective and inconsistent ).

 

[WayneMB]

what Reeves means by grounded is the approach to characters and the aesthetic of the movie. he never mentioned realism as a thing in his universe.

 

[Dr.]

By way of analogy... If you look up “difference between story and plot,” you’ll get a reasonably clear explanation. One describes the basic sequence of events in a narrative (A, then B, then C, then…); and the other is about the ideas and emotions that drive those events. Problem is, different people will swap the terms around. So while the distinction is still there, there can be some (temporary) confusion as to which label is being applied to which concept.

And it might be a similar situation for “grounded” and “realistic.” I suspect most have an intuitive understanding of the difference. But the actual labels sometimes get mixed around. I tend to think of “grounded” as a more dramatic/serious approach to the material. Thus, Superman could be “grounded.” But he can’t be “realistic” — because, by definition, a flying guy with heat vision is fantastical. Whereas, Batman could be both “grounded” and (relatively) “realistic.”