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

[TheVileOne]

With the level of realism, there's really nothing that should prevent using Mr. Freeze. The Arkham Origins DLC and B:TAS provided a very science-based and realistic way to present Mr. Freeze, so it doesn't have to be "magic."

You can make a grounded version of Mr. Freeze if that's something they want to try at some point.

 

[TheIronist]

Holy headache batman.

 

[The Guard]

I
And not just that. This Batman was supposed to be really intelligent, yet he didn't take those last seconds on the clock to get any distance from the explosion, when it became clear the guy wasn't going to answer Riddler's last question. No, using his hands to shield his face doesn't excuse it. If anything, that just makes it sillier.

He's not just really intelligent, he's also obsessed. Him staying until the bomb explodes is the movie showing that he's become obsessed. He does something similarly reckless in The Batmobile when he's after Penguin.

I don't know if that's realistically survivable, although the movie later shows us that his gauntlets are somewhat armored when he uses them to deflect gunfire. The issue with surviving a bomb would be the pressure as much as the force and projectile elements of it.

With the level of realism, there's really nothing that should prevent using Mr. Freeze. The Arkham Origins DLC and B:TAS provided a very science-based and realistic way to present Mr. Freeze, so it doesn't have to be "magic."

You can make a grounded version of Mr. Freeze if that's something they want to try at some point.

Mr. Freeze is doable, he's just a guy who uses cold to wound or kill instead of riddles. Just make surviving cold and needing the extreme cold into a psychological metaphor.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

People think this series will play out like the Nolan trilogy in terms of realism for some reason. But that need not be the case. This film is already a lot more stylized than the Nolan films and it’s possible to see this series further incorporate comic book zaniness in a way the Nolan films couldn’t.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

To each their own. Even for it's flaws I had a fantastic experience overall. Actually I loved most things in the film. Masterful world design, the characters and acting, the soundscape etc.

To clarify, my issue isn't really with realism. Rather it's that I can't stay invested in action that doesn't seem to have any consequences. Sure the movie has a very hightened style, but it's still by far the grittiest world out of all the Batman movies. Blood, sweat and bruises. If this Bruce is so obsessively wreckless, that he doesn't duck out of an explosion and walks straight into machine gun fire, it should have meaningful consequences.

Once the final climactic battle rolled around, I felt pretty much disconnected from all of it. So what if they have guns? He took a bomb to the face and only hours later made a daring escape from the police building.

 

[Brother Jack]

To each their own. Even for it's flaws I had a fantastic experience overall. Actually I loved most things in the film. Masterful world design, the characters and acting, the soundscape etc.

To clarify, my issue isn't really with realism. Rather it's that I can't stay invested in action that doesn't seem to have any consequences. Sure the movie has a very hightened style, but it's still by far the grittiest world out of all the Batman movies. Blood, sweat and bruises. If this Bruce is so obsessively wreckless, that he doesn't duck out of an explosion and walks straight into machine gun fire, it should have meaningful consequences.

Once the final climactic battle rolled around, I felt pretty much disconnected from all of it. So what if they have guns? He took a bomb to the face and only hours later made a daring escape from the police building.

This. It's not actually about realism. Realism is a misnomer. Batman is intrinsically unrealistic, as all superheroes are. This movie is not realistic any more than Nolan's films were, it's just attempting to present a world with a coherent verisimilitude, more gritty and street-level than has been done on film before. So the issue isn't if it's realistic or not, the issue is if it's consistent to the world building and dramatic stakes of the narrative.

 

[BatLobster]

This. It's not actually about realism. Realism is a misnomer. Batman is intrinsically unrealistic, as all superheroes are. This movie is not realistic any more than Nolan's films were, it's just attempting to present a world with a coherent verisimilitude, more gritty and street-level than has been done on film before. So the issue isn't if it's realistic or not, the issue is if it's consistent to the world building and dramatic stakes of the narrative.

To add onto this, I think the core of my issue with it is it feels like it's thrown in just to make Batman more 'badass'. Like it's one thing to see him take a bullet or two, it's another when he's just absorbing automatic fire and calmly walking into it. It feels like it's just there as something to make the fans go "OMG" regardless of the impact it has on the story and stakes.

 

[Kindred]

I don't really think the movie was trying to show the physical toll that Bruce's war was having on him though. It was exclusively focused on the mental toll. He very obviously doesn't look mentally well. As I've outlined previously, in this movie which

Spoiler

takes place over a week long period, I saw ONE opportunity for the dude to actually sleep 8 hours. ONE (this being the time skip from the funeral scene to Batman confronting Gil and even then that's just an opportunity). The war isn't physically destroying him, but it is mentally destroying him. That much is apparent with how downright existentially nihilistic the journal entry at the start of the movie is. He doesn't even think he's making a difference yet he just can't stop going out there every night. We've already seen movies where Batman has a severe physical toll, but I can't say I remember any movie from the past where his obsession took this much of a cerebral toll. To the point of where even if he's not actually contributing anything he still has to go out and beat the **** out of criminals. The implications there for Bruce's mental state are downright haunting. And in my opinion, those implications are far more effective and interesting than a damaged batsuit or body ever could be

I'm sorry, I dont know if to call you dude or dudette, but you are my favorite person right now!
THIS!

 

[DeadlyWest]

I'm sorry, I dont know if to call you dude or dudette, but you are my favorite person right now!
THIS!

You may call me dude

 

[TheWallCrawler]

To add onto this, I think the core of my issue with it is it feels like it's thrown in just to make Batman more 'badass'. Like it's one thing to see him take a bullet or two, it's another when he's just absorbing automatic fire and calmly walking into it. It feels like it's just there as something to make the fans go "OMG" regardless of the impact it has on the story and stakes.

The weird thing about that is, earlier in the movie you can see that even a handgun shot blows him back a little, and Penguin's uzi immediately knocks him down on the ground, but in that trailer scene he's not fazed by the machine guns at all.

And one thing that I thought was a bit of a missed opportunity is when Batman is dangling from the cable and cuts it, zapping himself with electricity, instead of pulling himself up from the water it might've been cooler if the people he just saved came to his aid, Spider-Man 2 style. The electrocution looked like a setup for something, but then it wasn't so I thought it was strange to show it at all.

 

[blaberskite]

People think this series will play out like the Nolan trilogy in terms of realism for some reason. But that need not be the case. This film is already a lot more stylized than the Nolan films and it’s possible to see this series further incorporate comic book zaniness in a way the Nolan films couldn’t.

Completely agree, my personal view was that I was always a little disappointed that Nolan got further and further away from the fact that essentially all CBM's are fantasy movies. They just felt too self serious and joyless to me (but I appreciate I'm probably in the minority on that).

With regard to realism in these movies the arguments get pretty silly when a director or fans try too hard to argue that it's a 'realistic' approach. It's like the no killing rule, there was plenty of collateral damage and disregard for public safety in the Nolan movies (batman blowing up cop cars in begins when getting rachel back to the batcave). But you have to suspend disbelief, just be honest with it and embrace it, doesn't have to mean you go full on batman and Robin levels of silliness.

The level of 'realism' I would like to personally see with regard to fighting and taking on large groups of thugs without being shot in the face would be anything like Mathew Vaughan delivered in kick ass or kingsman.

Kick ass totally showed how well Robin could work, just take out the killing and have Robin knocking people out insread, and it shows how to choreograph fights against multiple thugs/henchman whilst not taking any direct hits.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

They just felt too self serious and joyless to me.

I've read this statement about the Nolan films (as a criticism) said by people who loved The Batman. Which blows my mind.

I can see this critique fitting The Batman more than the Nolan films, honestly. There's far more levity in the Nolan films than people give them credit for.

The Batman's tone is exactly what people THINK the Nolan films are like.

(Both tones work for their films, by the way. This isn't a knock on either.)

 

[WayneMB]

this movie is anything but self-serious and joyless lol.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

this movie is anything but self-serious and joyless lol.

Back it up. I wasn't saying that was the case.

I was saying IF that critique was going to be leveled at either Nolan or Reeves - it would be Reeves.

 

[WayneMB]

Back it up. I wasn't saying that was the case.

I was saying IF that critique was going to be leveled at either Nolan or Reeves - it would be Reeves.

i have no clue how one comes to a conclusion like that.

 

[blaberskite]

For me I think I just feel that Nolan movies in general have a certain 'self serious, joyless feel'. But again I appreciate I'm in a minority and he has many many fans.

I think that my point is that for as 'gritty' as the batman is it embraces far more of the fantastical elements that are inherent in a comic book movie. It clearly depicts a world similar but still completely different to ours. By the time rises came out any attempt to make Gotham look different to any other city was completely gone.

Maybe I'm wrong but watching it I felt that there is more room for the other more 'colourful' rogues like freeze or Croc, I never felt that in the nolan movies.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

i have no clue how one comes to a conclusion like that.

??

Look, this film is great.

But you really can't see anyone in the general audiences seeing this film and thinking "Wow, that was joyless and a bit too serious/dark"?

It's understandable. This film or its tone isn't for everyone.

 

[BatLobster]

Wait, how is this movie not self-serious? I think it's fair to say that a 3 hour noir detective film is by definition, self-serious. It is dealing with some very, very dark thematic material. It is clearly taking influence from movies like Se7en, Zodiac, Chinatown, Klute, The Godfather, etc. It's the furthest thing from some light superhero romp as you can get in this genre.

Just because something has comic booky elements doesn't mean it's not self-serious. BvS is "comic booky" as hell and I find it to be pretty joyless (no offense to anyone who loves it, that is just my subjective feeling on it).

Tone is such a funny topic when it comes to Batman movies, cause at the end of the day they're all about a guy who wears pointy ears and a cape to fight crime. There is some inherent ridiculousness there no matter how serious you make it.

To me the Nolan films are more 'fun' than The Batman in that they have a certain energy, rhythm and epic scale to them that makes them very thrilling and exciting in a very 'blockbuster' sort of way. They rode that line of being meaningful stories with depth while also being fun, entertaining blockbusters. The Batman is much more slow burn. It plunges you into a dark, dystopic nightmare of a city. It is striving to be much more like a David Fincher film or a neo-noir entry than anything we've ever seen in the superhero genre.

I guess this is a very mileage may vary sort of thing.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I think now, more than ever, TDK trilogy look like larger than life comic book blusters, with a specific tone while still allowing for the humor to come in at the right time. The Nolan movies always had a good sense of humor, and I never once found them depressing. Even as intense as TDK gets, it never feels like "wow, what a depressing film". At it's core, it's a summer blockbuster meant for everybody. I'll never understand the notion of it being joyless, especially now post The Batman, which is a far more serious movie in every facet.

Honestly, there were moments during this movie that I was like "damn, this is dark". Not in a bad way though, I mean, it's what Reeves set out to do so it works.

 

[BatLobster]

I think now, more than ever, TDK trilogy look like larger than life comic book blusters, with a specific tone while still allowing for the humor to come in at the right time. The Nolan movies always had a good sense of humor, and I never once found them depressing. Even as intense as TDK gets, it never feels like "wow, what a depressing film". I'll never understand that notion, especially now post The Batman, which is a far more serious movie in every facet.

I think "intense" is the perfect way to describe the Nolan films, especially the two sequels. They hit hard and tackle some big themes, they put the characters through hell, the threat of the villains feels massive and insurmountable, but it's not like they put me in a dark or depressed mood when I watch them. You can pretty much walk away from all of them with that "f*** yeah, BATMAN" feeling. Even Batman Returns kind of has that kind of depressive vibe to me. Penguin's whole story is just...deeply upsetting lol.

Admittedly, TDK did leave me in stunned silence when I first saw it. It throws so much at you and it was a lot to digest, much like The Batman. But once the overall shock value for the story's twists and turns has worn off, you're still able to appreciate it for the epic rollercoaster ride that it is, and appreciate all the bits of humor and fun it has to offer as well.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I think "intense" is the perfect way to describe the Nolan films, especially the two sequels. They hit hard and tackle some big themes, they put the characters through hell, the threat of the villains feels massive and insurmountable, but it's not like they put me in a dark or depressed mood when I watch them. You can pretty much walk away from all of them with that "f*** yeah, BATMAN" feeling. Even Batman Returns kind of has that kind of depressive vibe to me. Penguin's whole story is just...deeply upsetting lol.

Admittedly, TDK did leave me in stunned silence when I first saw it. It throws so much at you and it was a lot to digest, much like The Batman. But once the overall shock value for the story's twists and turns has worn off, you're still able to appreciate it for the epic rollercoaster ride that it is, and appreciate all the bits of humor and fun it has to offer as well.

Absolutely. Haha I always look at Batman Returns as sort of a Christmas nightmare in a way.

I rewatched TDK yesterda and at the end I always sort of feel like out of breath, but in a good way. The movie is structured in a way that leaves you on the edge of your seat, but also still be incredibly fun. That batmobile/batpod/armored truck chase is insanely fun, especially after Bats flips the truck. Stuff like that is pure summer blockbuster haha.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

??

Look, this film is great.

But you really can't see anyone in the general audiences seeing this film and thinking "Wow, that was joyless and a bit too serious/dark"?

It's understandable. This film or its tone isn't for everyone.

Pretty sure this is what the couple in front of me who left the cinema around the 30-min mark thought. Meh, their loss.

I also don't think every Batman needs to cater to a wider audience's taste. Comic book movies have become so varied and diverse, there's something for everyone to enjoy. But this kind of reminds of people taking their kids to see Deadpool, expecting typical comic book schlock and child-friendly fun...from a R-rated movie.

I think now, more than ever, TDK trilogy look like larger than life comic book blusters, with a specific tone while still allowing for the humor to come in at the right time. The Nolan movies always had a good sense of humor, and I never once found them depressing. Even as intense as TDK gets, it never feels like "wow, what a depressing film". At it's core, it's a summer blockbuster meant for everybody. I'll never understand the notion of it being joyless, especially now post The Batman, which is a far more serious movie in every facet.

Honestly, there were moments during this movie that I was like "damn, this is dark". Not in a bad way though, I mean, it's what Reeves set out to do so it works.

This reminds me of the Nolan criticism about his movies being too 'cold'...this is the same guy who tells us that love will save our species in one of his movies.

Ultimately, I think The Batman hit that sweet spot in terms of realism and the more heightened stuff which should allow them quite a bit of flexibility in where they next take this series, either a more fantastical take or in carrying on with the type of 'neo-noir' realism visible in this first installment.

 

[BatLobster]

One thing that I think is interesting in comparing versions. While I think Nolan and Reeves' overall approach is very different, there is one thing I'll say. I think some of the villains would fit in one another's universes. I think Heath Ledger's Joker could work in the Reeves-verse. I think Dano's Riddler would work in the Nolan-verse. I think Murphy's Scarecrow could work in the Reeves-verse too. Farrell's Penguin probably could've worked in the Nolan-verse.

That's one thing I've never felt before with different interpretations. Like I never felt Jim Carrey's Riddler would work in a Burton movie, or any of Burton's villains would work in a Nolan movie.

I think what's interesting about it is, I feel like Nolan's more 'comic booky' elements "popped" more against his setting. But I also think it's roughly a similar level of comic booky-ness that Reeves has applied to his whole world of Gotham. If that makes any sense at all...

Where I think it differs is I don't think the League of Shadows/Ra's necessarily fits into the Reeves-verse, as I feel like focusing on threats from within Gotham better fits the tone of his world. But I'm not sure a comics accurate Lazarus Pit would fit in Reeves' world any more than Nolan's, hypothetically speaking.

 

[DeadlyWest]

With the level of realism, there's really nothing that should prevent using Mr. Freeze. The Arkham Origins DLC and B:TAS provided a very science-based and realistic way to present Mr. Freeze, so it doesn't have to be "magic."

You can make a grounded version of Mr. Freeze if that's something they want to try at some point.

Backpack full of liquid nitrogen + Reverse engineered flamethrower + need to regulate body temperature due to genetic disorder that was severely aggravated by accident + Cruel irony of freezing the ones who caused his accident.

Literally all you need.

 

[DKDetective]

Backpack full of liquid nitrogen + Reverse engineered flamethrower + need to regulate body temperature due to genetic disorder that was severely aggravated by accident + Cruel irony of freezing the ones who caused his accident.

Literally all you need.

Matt Reeves made 2/3 of a serious grounded trilogy of films where a genetically engineered virus creates talking, super intelligent apes while killing off most of humanity and leaving the survivors dumb mutes.

That should be all the answer anyone needs to how does he adapt Mr. Freeze, Clayface, or Man-Bat into this version of Gotham. All of these are pretty straightforward science fiction villains. It's not like we are dealing with the supernatural here, which admittedly would not jive her. If they follow the early BTAS rule of no magic, sky's the limit.