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

[BatLobster]

To be fair, I don't think using a director's other films as an example always necessarily works as a predictor of what they'll do. Planet of the Apes and Batman are two separate franchises after all.

To use an example-- a lot of Nolan's other films had more outlandish sci-fi conceits than even his Batman films did. A cloning machine, 5th dimensional beings, a dream sharing technology, time inversion technology, etc. The Batman movies definitely had plenty of sci-fi but it never pushed into what I'd call "hard" sci-fi. Because there was a specific type of tone he was attempting to adhere to with those movies.

So it all really depends on how Reeves envisions this Batman world. Just because he made a movie with talking apes doesn't necessarily mean I think talking animals would work in this universe, for example. It might, should he decide it does and he figures out how to bridge that gap-- but it's too early for me to say based on what we saw in The Batman. His take on Riddler might be one of the most grounded takes on a Batman villain we've ever seen in one of the films.

 

[PurpleStar]

Holy headache batman.

Must be made of titanium.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Are we really having the grounded conversation again? Do I need to bring up the quotes from Reeves about grounding the apes films?

 

[C Prometheus]

Are we really having the grounded conversation again? Do I need to bring up the quotes from Reeves about grounding the apes films?

I'm not even trying to have the discussion personally, especially considering that we're in the wrong thread for that topic. I really don't want this conversation.

However I find it baffling how people keep ignoring what Reeves has said about his Batman films and his recent comments about his plans here and are trying to pull up a completely different franchise. These are recent quotes and comments on the matter from the man himself and it feels like they're going in one ear out the other for a lot of folks!

Can Matt Reeves do a more fantastical Batman film? Sure! The capacity is certainly there, especially after seeing the film. Will he make a more fantastical Batman film? Judging by what the man himself has said within the last two months and the impressions from people at his Q&A's and comments from the cast? Apparently not.

The Planet of the Apes films are irrelevant here. Cloverfield is irrelevant. It's not a matter of if Reeves can make a more fantastical Batman film. We all know that he can. It's whether or not he wants to; and the quotes and impressions from those involved or who have spoken with him lately all indicate that he doesn't.

Maybe that'll change. Maybe it won't. Maybe he's been lying through his teeth lately. Who knows? But if we're taking the man at his word, as well as accounts from others who spoke with him on the matter, he's not interested.

 

[BatLobster]

The Planet of the Apes films are irrelevant here. Cloverfield is irrelevant. It's not a matter of if Reeves can make a more fantastical Batman film. We all know that he can. It's whether or not he wants to; and the quotes and impressions from those involved or who have spoken with him lately all indicate that he doesn't.

Maybe that'll change. Maybe it won't. Maybe he's been lying through his teeth lately. Who knows? But if we're taking the man at his word, as well as accounts from others who spoke with him on the matter, he's not interested.

Thank you, this is how I've been looking at it too. These are different franchises that happened to be tackled by the same person. Talking apes are kind on non-negotiable for a Planet of the Apes film. That's part of the package.

It'd be like saying that because Nolan had a cloning machine in The Prestige, some version of a Lazarus Pit or a version of Ra's that could actually survive physical death was on the table.

It's not to say that he may not get more fantastical, but I think some are being hasty to pretend they're inside Reeves' head and completely know his vision. That is how you set yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Eddie Dean]

It is relevant because the only proof of Reeves wanting things to be “realistic” is language that he has used before for more “unrealistic” things and that people are misinterpreting.

 

[C Prometheus]

Thank you, this is how I've been looking at it too. These are different franchises that happened to be tackled by the same person. Talking apes are kind on non-negotiable for a Planet of the Apes film. That's part of the package.

It'd be like saying that because Nolan had a cloning machine in The Prestige, some version of a Lazarus Pit or a version of Ra's that could actually survive physical death was on the table.

It's not to say that he may not get more fantastical, but I think some are being hasty to pretend they're inside Reeves' head and completely know his vision. That is how you set yourself up for disappointment.

Exactly. Reeves has the capacity to depict his Batman universe however he wants to. But it's that last bit of the sentence that people keep missing here and it's the real deciding factor of where things go from here: What does Matt Reeves want to do with Batman?

Can he do a "grounded" take on Clayface that completely embraces the BTAS sci-fi roots by taking a page out of David Cronenberg's The Fly? Absolutely! But will he? Judging by what people who saw his comments at a Q&A recently when asked about Clayface, apparently not, because that version of the character seems to be "too fantastical" for his interpretation of this universe.

Or how about his comments of being interested in adapting Mr. Freeze in a grounded way, and that he's so interested in the character because of how powerful and emotional that story (Heart of Ice) is and how he thinks there's a grounded way to adapt that?

That doesn't mean he's going to do a grounded take on Freeze compared to the Adam West show he grew up on, it means he's interested in doing a grounded reimagining of the Mr. Freeze that fans love from BTAS.

Maybe things will change. Maybe they won't. But I think you're right on the money here that some folks are setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

[BatLobster]

It is relevant because the only proof of Reeves wanting things to be “realistic” is language that he has used before for more “unrealistic” things and that people are misinterpreting.

I'm not even thinking about his Planet of the Apes films or what he's said about those, I'm just looking at the Batman movie that he just made. The thing is, if Reeves' goal with this vision was simply to do an adaptation of BTAS, then I'm not sure why he would do the version of Riddler that he did. It's literally the most grounded take on a Batman villain we've ever seen and it has direct real-world influence from the Zodiac. You can push things more into the fantastical, but it has to still feel like a credible progression from the world you've established or it may feel jarring. And the starting point he chose is very grounded.

And even with Joker, it's visually grotesque and 'extra', but Reeves is immediately offering an explanation that feels in the ballpark of 'grounded', even if it's not a real medical condition. So he's clearly someone who is keen on applying a consistent internal logic to his vision. This isn't James Gunn where it's like "Yup, we're gonna have a talking shark. Deal with it!"

 

[BMW 224]

I'm not even thinking about his Planet of the Apes films or what he's said about those, I'm just looking at the Batman movie that he just made. The thing is, if Reeves' goal with this vision was simply to do an adaptation of BTAS, then I'm not sure why he would do the version of Riddler that he did. It's literally the most grounded take on a Batman villain we've ever seen and it has direct real-world influence from the Zodiac. You can push things more into the fantastical, but it has to still feel like a credible progression from the world you've established or it may feel jarring. And the starting point he chose is very grounded.

And even with Joker, it's visually grotesque and 'extra', but Reeves is immediately offering an explanation that feels in the ballpark of 'grounded', even if it's not a real medical condition. So he's clearly someone who is keen on applying a consistent internal logic to his vision. This isn't James Gunn where it's like "Yup, we're gonna have a talking shark. Deal with it!"

I agree Matt Reeves is clearly more interested in making things more grounded and street level for his take.

 

[Eddie Dean]

The Riddler in The Batman is not a realistic or real world version of a serial killer. He's a movie serial killer who acts like a cartoon.

 

[BatLobster]

The Riddler in The Batman is not a realistic or real world version of a serial killer. He's a movie serial killer who acts like a cartoon.

Can you at least admit that it's a much more grounded take than...I dunno, any previous version of the Riddler? His visual representation is straight up inspired by Zodiac.

Once he's unmasked, he's basically a school shooter. An unhinged incel turned psychopath. The video of him talking to his online followers felt scarily plausible.

This is a far cry from the character in "If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?" who creates a giant, elaborate maze/deathtrap for Batman, and certainly a far cry from the antics of spandex nuttery of Jim Carrey and Frank Gorshin and their wild schemes.

He's not straight up John Doe-- there are Riddler characteristics in his performance for sure, but the very act of turning Riddler into a serial killer inspired by the works of David Fincher speaks volumes about what kind of take we're in.

Nobody he's saying he's not a "movie serial killer". These are all "movie version" of characters. But you're not getting what "grounded" and "realistic' means in this context if you think we use it as a way of saying any of this stuff is 100% reflective of the real world. But so far, it IS influenced by things from the real world. That is the point here.

 

[Eddie Dean]

John Doe is not a realistic character either.

 

[BMW 224]

The Riddler in The Batman is not a realistic or real world version of a serial killer. He's a movie serial killer who acts like a cartoon.

What was unrealistic about Ridder ?

He was an old school serial killer propped into today's world with access to our technology.

He was over the top that doesn't make him cartoony that make him insane.

 

[BatLobster]

John Doe is not a realistic character either.

Dude...lol

Eddie, no offense, but it seems like you are making half-hearted straw-man arguments. I literally just said that these are all "movie versions" of characters. We are not talking about documentaries here.

 

[Dr.]

I quite liked The Batman (even more so after a second viewing). However, the final scene/coda struck me as awkward. Batman and Selina say their good byes at the cemetery (so far, so good). Selina rides off on her motorcycle. And Batman does the same. But then there’s an odd kind of “reunion” and “choreography” — on motorcycles (?) — as the two drive through the cemetery grounds. Finally, they take different paths. Except… the symbolism and poignancy of this scene was (for me) somewhat undercut by the fact that one of these bikers was wearing a cape and cowl in broad daylight.

Such imagery, in my opinion, highlights the limits of “realism.” Put Batman in a kickass fight scene, and this demonic figure is fearsome and intimidating; have him discover clues at a shadowy crime scene, and he seems mysteriously ingenious and (somehow) plausible. But place him in a normal, “realistic” context (like commuting via motorcycle on public streets) and the “willing suspension of disbelief” is strained.

I wondered about setting this cemetery scene in the dead of night instead — conveying a more dream-like, gothic atmosphere. This might not have fixed everything. But I think it would have helped.

 

[WayneMB]

what

 

[metaphysician]

So, having just watched The Batman. . . no, the Riddler here isn't especially realistic, no moreso than Batman ( or the Heath Ledger Joker, for that matter ). I suppose he is technically the most "realistic" live action Riddler, simply for having Jim Carrey as the competition, but that is pretty much meaningless ( the Carrey Riddler was a cartoon character even by the broader standards of Batman Forever ). He's a full fledged cinematic 'serial killer' complete with high tech trickery, stupidly elaborate plans, and deployable supplies of minions; he's essentially Jigsaw with a different MO.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

what

I'm guessing @Dr. meant that driving the motorbike with a cape on will have a result similar to

 

[DeadlyWest]

I'm guessing @Dr. meant that driving the motorbike with a cape on will have a result similar to

I mean

They literally did it for real in TDK. So I think that's fine

also let's be real, cape on a bike is not the least realistic aspect of this movie lmao

Edit: mainly replying to this

I quite liked The Batman (even more so after a second viewing). However, the final scene/coda struck me as awkward. Batman and Selina say their good byes at the cemetery (so far, so good). Selina rides off on her motorcycle. And Batman does the same. But then there’s an odd kind of “reunion” and “choreography” — on motorcycles (?) — as the two drive through the cemetery grounds. Finally, they take different paths. Except… the symbolism and poignancy of this scene was (for me) somewhat undercut by the fact that one of these bikers was wearing a cape and cowl in broad daylight.

Such imagery, in my opinion, highlights the limits of “realism.” Put Batman in a kickass fight scene, and this demonic figure is fearsome and intimidating; have him discover clues at a shadowy crime scene, and he seems mysteriously ingenious and (somehow) plausible. But place him in a normal, “realistic” context (like commuting via motorcycle on public streets) and the “willing suspension of disbelief” is strained.

I wondered about setting this cemetery scene in the dead of night instead — conveying a more dream-like, gothic atmosphere. This might not have fixed everything. But I think it would have helped.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

They literally did it for real in TDK. So I think that's fine

I know, that scene was playing in my mind while I was thinking of and making my previous post.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I know, that scene was playing in my mind while I was thinking of and making my previous post.

Yeah, accidentally didn't quote the original poster (who that was directed at more than anything), my bad lmao

 

[BatLobster]

I think it's so cool/interesting that they had designed the cape backpack for TDK, because they had assumed the cape would cause problems on the bike...only to find that the wind lifted it enough to not be an issue, and simultaneously created a super iconic visual. The final shot just hits different with the cape flapping, hard to imagine it any other way.

 

[DeadlyWest]

I think it's so cool/interesting that they had designed the cape backpack for TDK, because they had assumed the cape would cause problems on the bike...only to find that the wind lifted enough to not be an issue, and simultaneously created a super iconic visual. The final shot just hits different with the cape flapping, hard to imagine it any other way.

Agreed, it also presents enough explanation for how the cape works on the bike in TB (even if that isn't actually how it's done in reality)

 

[shauner111]

People on reddit are in denial. They refuse to take in Matt’s words about how he only knows how to find the grounded versions of each character. These fans still believe (and will argue with you when you give them proof) that the sequel will start bringing in monsters. And they’ll argue that this version can never be definitive or separated from Nolan’s movies until they bring in the fantasy.

“Solomon Grundy can work”
“...umm not in this universe.”
“Why? At the end of the day he’s just a simple zombie character”
“...ummm a villain who dies and comes back to life wouldn’t work in this universe”.
“But that’s the whole point of Grundy...he’s a zombie?”
“...well...I guess Grundy just can’t work then lol”
*proceeds to give a detailed explanation of why he’s sick and tired of grounded realism*

Fandoms are so annoying.

 

[Lautox]

That's why I quit reddit, haven't opened it in 2 months, couldn't stand it no more. I'm sticking here, you guys have some really great ideas and I think this forum has true fans.