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

[MadVillainy]

On the topic of Robin, and I've see this debate going back to the Nolan movies. I feel like people are being a bit flippant when they point out that the general concept of Batman is absurd, so a 13 year old Robin should be no problem.

Here's the thing, it's not even about realism with me. It's that it's going to look goofy in live action. Goofier than a guy using an ice gun. Goofier than an immortal terrorist or gangster clown.
Even if a Batman movie has a lighter more MCU type tone, having a 13 year old with no powers and no guns is fighting grown men is always going to look silly. I'm thinking of the movie Hanna where a 15 year old was doing all that stuff. But even then she was using lethal weapons.

In cartoons you can buy a young Robin because a) most voice actors aren't actually 13 when they play the role. So they don't sound realistically young b) it's a cartoon so you already buy things being a bit more absurd.
I also think using a 13 year old Robin in live action is going to shine a light of how messed up the concept is and just make Batman more villainous. Like if they want to make a movie with Gordon going "Hey Batman you weirdo I'm not letting you put a 13 year old in front of gunfire" then I think it'll work. But playing it straight is just gonna be weird

That's not to say they shouldn't use Robin. If I was making a Batman movie I'd use Robin. But maybe make him 16 or 17. And I'm talking a Hollywood 16 or 17 where the character is actually played by a 20 year old.

EDIT: Actually I think the young sidekick could work if they use Cassandra Cain and they focus on how messed up her upbringing was to get her to that point.

 

[shauner111]

There will be no monsters in this universe. You can bank on that. It'll either happen in DCEU projects like James Gunn's Suicide Squad sequels, his spin offs, Batgirl, Nightwing. And then I'm sure the next Batman reboot In the 2030's will dive into the supernatural.

It's about patience guys. We've had a world where monsters/meta humans existed in the 90's. Plus the Animated Series was on the air. A lot of us lived through that. So when Nolan's more realistic take came in the 2000's it was fresh. In the last decade we've had the DCEU where almost every other movie had a monster in it. We even saw Batman fighting aliens in two movies. It's STILL carrying on with Firefly/Killer Moth as the villains for Batgirl.

Meanwhile Matt Reeves delivers a 70's influenced noir with grounded characters. You need balance. Before & during the ReevesVerse you got supernatural shirt in Gotham. AFTER the ReevesVerse you'll likely get supernatural shirt in Gotham. So I do not understand what the fuss is all about with fans.

There's been more supernatural Batman than not. In 15 years we'll look back on the history and it'll be imbalanced. There's also the possibility of future solo films that focus on Bane or Clayface or Mr Freeze. Embracing the fantasy.

Just because Schumacher can make multiple gritty crime movies, doesn't mean his Batman would look like The Dark Knight. He was a flamboyant man who wanted his Batman world to be flamboyant, colourful, campy and sexy. Matt Reeves may have fantasy in a lot of his movies, but why does that automatically mean that he wants the same for Batman? He clearly wants the opposite. You can make 43 movies about robots but that doesn't mean your next film can't be more realistic.

 

[MadVillainy]

There will be no monsters in this universe. You can bank on that. It'll either happen in DCEU projects like James Gunn's Suicide Squad sequels, his spin offs, Batgirl, Nightwing. And then I'm sure the next Batman reboot In the 2030's will dive into the supernatural.

It's about patience guys. We've had a world where monsters/meta humans existed in the 90's. Plus the Animated Series was on the air. A lot of us lived through that. So when Nolan's more realistic take came in the 2000's it was fresh. In the last decade we've had the DCEU where almost every other movie had a monster in it. We even saw Batman fighting aliens in two movies. It's STILL carrying on with Firefly/Killer Moth as the villains for Batgirl.

Eh I get what you're saying...but not solo movies right? That's what I'm talking about and I assume what most are talking about.

Because yeah if you open that up, you have fantastical or realistic Batman in other media. You can also say we have traditional Superman in comics or cartoons or even live action TV whenever people complain about how Superman is portrayed in movies.
OR when people complain that the Fox X-Men films have too much Wolverine, don't have the space opera stuff, etc; you can just wave it off by saying "Well there's the comics, the video games, and the TV shows that have Cyclops and do all the space stuff"
I don't think just because there is another versions that have what a certain audience wants that you can wave off any complaints as basically "you can get it somewhere else" Especially when it comes to live action films vs other mediums.

I think The Batman will be good to great. But since Batman came to the big screen, not counting Adam West, the serials or animation (shoutout Lego Batman) we got:
-2 inbetween but mostly grounded Burton solo movies with 1989-1992
-The Schumacher solo movies were more supernatural and that was 1995-1997
-3 grounded live action Nolan solo film from 2005-2012. A version that is still very fresh in people's minds
-2 ensemble DCEU appearances 2016-2017 that were in a more supernatural versions
-And now if it all works out we could be potentially getting another series (let's say a trilogy) of grounded Batman solo films. Starting in 2022.
Really we haven't gotten supernatural live action Batman solo films in 25 years. And even then those have mixed reception.

So the "it's about patience" argument doesn't hold weight because I think people have been patient when it comes to a supernatural solo film. We've been waiting, even counting the DCEU pre-Flashpoint/Batgirl, since 89 we got 4 supernatural Batman films (only 2 of which are solo films) to the 6 "grounded" solo films. Potentially more if The Batman works out and Reeves actually does a grounded realistic take throughout his series. The imbalance when it comes to live action solo films is clear with more grounded takes than supernatural ones

 

[Black Narcissus]

I'm good on no white lenses.

 

[antsman41]

I'm good on no white lenses.

Sexy Pattinson eyes > lenses, all day and night.

 

[shauner111]

Eh I get what you're saying...but not solo movies right? That's what I'm talking about and I assume what most are talking about.

Because yeah if you open that up, you have fantastical or realistic Batman in other media. You can also say we have traditional Superman in comics or cartoons or even live action TV whenever people complain about how Superman is portrayed in movies.
OR when people complain that the Fox X-Men films have too much Wolverine, don't have the space opera stuff, etc; you can just wave it off by saying "Well there's the comics, the video games, and the TV shows that have Cyclops and do all the space stuff"
I don't think just because there is another versions that have what a certain audience wants that you can wave off any complaints as basically "you can get it somewhere else" Especially when it comes to live action films vs other mediums.

I think The Batman will be good to great. But since Batman came to the big screen, not counting Adam West, the serials or animation (shoutout Lego Batman) we got:
-2 inbetween but mostly grounded Burton solo movies with 1989-1992
-The Schumacher solo movies were more supernatural and that was 1995-1997
-3 grounded live action Nolan solo film from 2005-2012. A version that is still very fresh in people's minds
-2 ensemble DCEU appearances 2016-2017 that were in a more supernatural versions
-And now if it all works out we could be potentially getting another series (let's say a trilogy) of grounded Batman solo films. Starting in 2022.
Really we haven't gotten supernatural live action Batman solo films in 25 years. And even then those have mixed reception.

So the "it's about patience" argument doesn't hold weight because I think people have been patient when it comes to a supernatural solo film. We've been waiting, even counting the DCEU pre-Flashpoint/Batgirl, since 89 we got 4 supernatural Batman films (only 2 of which are solo films) to the 6 "grounded" solo films. Potentially more if The Batman works out and Reeves actually does a grounded realistic take throughout his series. The imbalance when it comes to live action solo films is clear with more grounded takes than supernatural ones

Batman Returns has a man with flipper hands and a Catwoman who is literally immortal and can be electrocuted or shot a hundred times and still dance her way to the top of a building for a pose. If that's not fantasy I don't know what is. Burton and Schumacher movies make 4. If we're only talking solo films (which excludes Batfleck's entire take) then okay. But it really is about patience. The DCEU is still ongoing and it's full blown fantasy, sci-fi. Meanwhile Reeves' Batman is more grounded. Everyone will eventually get their solo films that have B or C list monsters.

The other reason for this is well...the general audience doesn't know or care about Man Bat, Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Clayface, Killer Croc. They know Ivy and Freeze through one bad 1997 movie. So the only hunger is coming from hardcore fans, which are a piss drop in the ocean. That's like 20 percent max of the audience who goes to see these movies. Maybe less. So the studio isn't going to sidestep a good filmmaker's new grounded vision just because that minority are talking on a message board or twitter thread about how they miss the supernatural element from the comics. It'll come, but you can't force it. Just gotta wait until a director is actually passionate about that side of the lore.

If they let Flanagan make a Batman movie or Del Toro, they'll likely use Clayface etc. But it's all about timing. Fortunately or unfortunately there's always going to be a fascination with the psychological criminals. Every series is kinda based around the top 5 most popular rogues (and they're popular for a reason). And then you can squeeze a couple of obscure rogues in there but they have to match how the director sees the Joker's, Catwoman's, Riddler's, Penguin's, Two-Face's of the world. It's kinda rare to find a film director who is adequate at his or her job AND they're a fan of the mythology AND they happen to be into the monsters that almost nobody has heard of. It's a hat trick finding that person.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I feel like the word 'grounded' is so overused these days, it's lost all meaning and I'm almost triggered when I see that word because to me, it now translates to "a world drained of everything that made it interesting to begin with."

 

[OnLeatherWings]

From what I can tell, Reeves' world is realistic in its characters. It does feel other-worldly in its setting, though. Like how Gotham should be and most often is.

I think he's left himself wiggle-room for him to approve or deny fantastical elements in his world down the line and with how he's presenting this film, it can go either way and still feel like it fits.

 

[Eddie Dean]

People can have flipper hands irl just to be clear

 

[OnLeatherWings]

At this point, it's long since felt like Batman fans are ashamed of the source material being explored in film faithfully for fear of Batman's 'seriousness' taking a hit with audiences.

It's like they're worried that if Clayface appears in a Batman film, Batman will be seen as 'campy' or 'silly' again.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen fans fearfully advocate that an adaptation NOT be faithful in this way.

There's a right way to bring these characters to a new medium - and it can be done. The Arkham series didn't lose credibility nor would anyone deem them campy, silly or dumb because Killer Croc and Mr. Freeze were in them alongside Man-Bat.

Quite the opposite.

They're seen as some of the best adaptations of the world of Batman. Done in a credible, serious and interesting way.

Batman films should not be 'where the fantastical elements and colour of Batman's comic world go to die'.

I'm over these nerfed versions of Batman villains that bear little more than visual 'nods' to their comic counterparts (2012's Bane?) meanwhile the MCU gives us a talking raccoon and leaves with their credibility intact and fans satisfied.

I just don't see why we would want to advocate for a Batman in film that closes the door to not only some of the character's greatest villains but story arc possibilities, as well. Why intentionally shut that door?

I've grown up and realized that the trend that a film has to have the fantastical or less realistic elements removed for it to be seen as 'gritty' and taken seriously needs to go.

I just don't want to see Batman solo films draining all the style, flair, colour and other-worldliness that make him so interesting to begin with.

Christopher Nolan did the 'realistic' Batman.

I'm praying Matt Reeves bridges that gap and gives us the best of both the 'grounded' Batman and the fantastical.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

It does seem like there is a subset of Batman fans who are very concerned about making sure Batman is seen as a very serious adult property for very serious adults. And as a result of that, they close the door on characters that may make it look “childish”.

 

[Marvel united]

Lenses can absolutely work on film and work to ENHANCE the effect of the character on film. I'm tired of a) the panda eye makeup, and b) the tired argument that it can't be done... Which is only going to persist until... It is. That's just how these things work.

Not un like how, in 2005-2012, pundits of the Nolan trilogy swore up, down and all around that a grey & black suit could never work in live action. Eventually it'll be proven wrong and ridiculous. It's just a shame Reeves didn't work the lenses into the suit. It could've been such a fresh visage for the overall aesthetic presentation of the character.

 

[shauner111]

Lenses can absolutely work on film and work to ENHANCE the effect of the character on film. I'm tired of a) the panda eye makeup, and b) the tired argument that it can't be done... Which is only going to persist until... It is. That's just how these things work.

Not un like how, in 2005-2012, pundits of the Nolan trilogy swore up, down and all around that a grey & black suit could never work in live action. Eventually it'll be proven wrong and ridiculous. It's just a shame Reeves didn't work the lenses into the suit. It could've been such a fresh visage for the overall aesthetic presentation of the character.

Id rather see Rob’s intense eyes.

 

[C Prometheus]

At this point, it's long since felt like Batman fans are ashamed of the source material being explored in film faithfully for fear of Batman's 'seriousness' taking a hit with audiences.

It's like they're worried that if Clayface appears in a Batman film, Batman will be seen as 'campy' or 'silly' again.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen fans fearfully advocate that an adaptation NOT be faithful in this way.

There's a right way to bring these characters to a new medium - and it can be done. The Arkham series didn't lose credibility nor would anyone deem them campy, silly or dumb because Killer Croc and Mr. Freeze were in them alongside Man-Bat.

Quite the opposite.

They're seen as some of the best adaptations of the world of Batman. Done in a credible, serious and interesting way.

Batman films should not be 'where the fantastical elements and colour of Batman's comic world go to die'.

I'm over these nerfed versions of Batman villains that bear little more than visual 'nods' to their comic counterparts (2012's Bane?) meanwhile the MCU gives us a talking raccoon and leaves with their credibility intact and fans satisfied.

I just don't see why we would want to advocate for a Batman in film that closes the door to not only some of the character's greatest villains but story arc possibilities, as well. Why intentionally shut that door?

I've grown up and realized that the trend that a film has to have the fantastical or less realistic elements removed for it to be seen as 'gritty' and taken seriously needs to go.

I just don't want to see Batman solo films draining all the style, flair, colour and other-worldliness that make him so interesting to begin with.

Christopher Nolan did the 'realistic' Batman.

I'm praying Matt Reeves bridges that gap and gives us the best of both the 'grounded' Batman and the fantastical.

It does seem like there is a subset of Batman fans who are very concerned about making sure Batman is seen as a very serious adult property for very serious adults. And as a result of that, they close the door on characters that may make it look “childish”.

Lenses can absolutely work on film and work to ENHANCE the effect of the character on film. I'm tired of a) the panda eye makeup, and b) the tired argument that it can't be done... Which is only going to persist until... It is. That's just how these things work.

Not un like how, in 2005-2012, pundits of the Nolan trilogy swore up, down and all around that a grey & black suit could never work in live action. Eventually it'll be proven wrong and ridiculous. It's just a shame Reeves didn't work the lenses into the suit. It could've been such a fresh visage for the overall aesthetic presentation of the character.

So before I go any further, I want to preface that this post doesn't come from a place of aggression or ill will towards any of you. I'm just quoting all three of you because you each have arguments that roughly tie into one another for a collective whole "We want things to be more fantastical/comic-y" position. And there's nothing wrong with having that opinion!

To the point now:

I really think a lot of this arguing actually stems far more from what our respective priorities in a Batman film are. To me, my positions on the matter always stem from either personal preferences on what sorts of Batman characters I want to see adapted next onscreen or from the perspective of someone who cares more about the filmmaking craft and how best to adapt the mythology to that medium, rather than find ways to force in more traditionally comic visuals into live action and remove the stronger cinematic methods that work.

On a personal level, it's more than a little aggravating to see people write off those opinions that I and others have about the franchise as simply being "Oh we're insecure and have to ensure that Batman is always seen solely as a very serious adult thing for adult." Especially when I see posts typically neglect to actually bother to respond to points like the one I made yesterday.

Matt Reeves does not need to make this iteration of the BatVerse to be fantastical and more comic-y if he doesn't want to. Not just because of his creative control or impulses, but because we now have a second DC film universe that's already well-established to be more on the comic-y and fantastical side of things.

The DCEU has one of the best Batman actors ever in its ranks joining the fray. It's got a Batgirl film on the way and strong indicators that we'll soon be seeing a Nightwing film and a Black Canary project and/or a proper BOP project shortly after that too. Batman has such a massive Rogues Gallery, it'd be very difficult to get everyone adapted to the big screen in Reeves' universe and given justice when they're working in the confines of a set trilogy (and whatever additional series stuff that get made too).

So why not use villains like Man-Bat, Clayface or Poison Ivy in the DCEU and allow them the space to get priority treatment in Gotham-set films there? The only thing you're giving up is that they won't be exclusively fighting Batman as their primary target and that'd ideally be traded off by finally getting to see the BatFamily in action.

Just food for thought!

 

[AndyTrevino]

I just also feel like Batman is THE big tentpole character if you want to go dark. We already have a bunch of other characters to fill the lighthearted superhero void.

And just to be clear, I'm not one of those people who thinks Clayface and the like are campy or whatever. I just....don't want Schumacher 2.0 and that as well as those OnStar commercials from 2000 are what keeps coming to mind.

Stuff like Batman and Robin nearly killed the franchise.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'll definitely echo C Prometheus's point about there being more than one avenue for exploring Batman's more fantastical characters than just The Batman.

I don't think there's a Batman fan out there who doesn't like it when the more fantastical stuff is included - provided its done in an appropriate narrative.

I absolutely love the Arkham games, for instance. But do I want those kinds of fantastical representations anywhere near what Reeves is doing? Absolutely not. Totally wrong for the story and tone he's setting up with this first movie.

This argument seems to be more about people being unhappy that the main Batman live adaptation going forward is going to be one that once again skews towards 'realism' and 'believability' (quotes used as we're talking about a man who dresses up as a bat). But there is also an entire separate universe in the DCEU where those fantastical elements can - and no doubt will - be explored.

Time will tell which approach will be more successful... but let's not ruin Reeves's grounded universe with stuff that'll be inappropriate for it.

 

[Mani-Man]

Id rather see Rob’s intense eyes.

Yeah, i mean i could see in Action scenes or so, going with the lenses...which would help him enhance his view in the night...but Rob does an incredible job with his eyes and i dont want to sacrifice that.

It does seem like there is a subset of Batman fans who are very concerned about making sure Batman is seen as a very serious adult property for very serious adults. And as a result of that, they close the door on characters that may make it look “childish”.

I doubt people are overly worried that going away from the "Grounded" approach would result in Batman&Robin kind of stuff.
I do think it has more to do with how Raw you can make Superhero world, how gritty and "honest" that captures peoples interest more.

I think this kind of "problem" could be easily solved, if WB wouldnt be so scared or whatever they are...i dont know.

Especially in this day and age you can use the Multiverse to its fullest, without too much worry.
We could easily have at least 3 versions of batman running around, marketed towards different fans.

You could do a HBO Max series easily with a more lighthearted approach, you can do this kind of Black Label Reeves Batman universe and a third Batman universe.
All very easy to do...why WB doesnt want that? I dont know, its hard to understand them.

Anway...the thing i do want to see is how far Reeves stretches his rules.
His version of the Riddler is incredible well done so far, he kept the idea of the character but grounded it so well that he works almost better than a comic accurate riddler.
That is what im most curious about above everything...what kind of characters in his world exist.
How he would tackle more fantastical characters and ground them.
How would he do the court of owls, croc, bane, two face, mad hatter, scarecrow etc.

 

[Dr.]

On the topic of Robin, and I've see this debate going back to the Nolan movies. I feel like people are being a bit flippant when they point out that the general concept of Batman is absurd, so a 13 year old Robin should be no problem.

...Even if a Batman movie has a lighter more MCU type tone, having a 13 year old with no powers and no guns is fighting grown men is always going to look silly....

I also think using a 13 year old Robin in live action is going to shine a light of how messed up the concept is and just make Batman more villainous...

Assuming a high “realism quotient,” it takes young Bruce Wayne many years of training before he’s ready to don the cape and cowl. (E.g., it’s seven years in Batman Begins.) So by that reckoning, junior sidekicks like Robin or Batgirl would be decidedly implausible. Moreover, it would be morally unconscionable for Batman to sanction these sidekicks for dangerous and violent vigilantism.

But dial down the “realism” a couple of ticks and Robin/Batgirl can work just fine. (Indeed, they have worked in that context for decades.)

Things get dicey, however, when these separate approaches are conflated. And here I’m thinking, specifically, of the murder of Jason Todd and the maiming of Barbara Gordon. These characters were explicitly created for a more lighthearted, family-friendly iteration of the material; yet they were transposed into the “gritty realism” version. And, not too surprising, they suffered the realistic consequences.

Unlike Superman (who’s intrinsically fantastical), Batman can occupy various places or sub-genres on the “realism spectrum.” But pick a lane. IMO, it can be problematic to mix the sub-genres.

 

[C Prometheus]

Assuming a high “realism quotient,” it takes young Bruce Wayne many years of training before he’s ready to don the cape and cowl. (E.g., it’s seven years in Batman Begins.) So by that reckoning, junior sidekicks like Robin or Batgirl would be decidedly implausible. Moreover, it would be morally unconscionable for Batman to sanction these sidekicks for dangerous and violent vigilantism.

But dial down the “realism” a couple of ticks and Robin/Batgirl can work just fine. (Indeed, they have worked in that context for decades.)

Things get dicey, however, when these separate approaches are conflated. And here I’m thinking, specifically, of the murder of Jason Todd and the maiming of Barbara Gordon. These characters were explicitly created for a more lighthearted, family-friendly iteration of the material; yet they were transposed into the “gritty realism” version. And, not too surprising, they suffered the realistic consequences.

Unlike Superman (who’s intrinsically fantastical), Batman can occupy various places or sub-genres on the “realism spectrum.” But pick a lane. IMO, it can be problematic to mix the sub-genres.

And this right here is the great boon of the situation we now find the DC films in. There's two different DC universes happening onscreen now with completely different takes on Batman inhabiting them. Let's make the most of that!

 

[shauner111]

It does seem like there is a subset of Batman fans who are very concerned about making sure Batman is seen as a very serious adult property for very serious adults. And as a result of that, they close the door on characters that may make it look “childish”.

At this point, it's long since felt like Batman fans are ashamed of the source material being explored in film faithfully for fear of Batman's 'seriousness' taking a hit with audiences.

It's like they're worried that if Clayface appears in a Batman film, Batman will be seen as 'campy' or 'silly' again.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen fans fearfully advocate that an adaptation NOT be faithful in this way.

There's a right way to bring these characters to a new medium - and it can be done. The Arkham series didn't lose credibility nor would anyone deem them campy, silly or dumb because Killer Croc and Mr. Freeze were in them alongside Man-Bat.

Quite the opposite.

They're seen as some of the best adaptations of the world of Batman. Done in a credible, serious and interesting way.

Batman films should not be 'where the fantastical elements and colour of Batman's comic world go to die'.

I'm over these nerfed versions of Batman villains that bear little more than visual 'nods' to their comic counterparts (2012's Bane?) meanwhile the MCU gives us a talking raccoon and leaves with their credibility intact and fans satisfied.

I just don't see why we would want to advocate for a Batman in film that closes the door to not only some of the character's greatest villains but story arc possibilities, as well. Why intentionally shut that door?

I've grown up and realized that the trend that a film has to have the fantastical or less realistic elements removed for it to be seen as 'gritty' and taken seriously needs to go.

I just don't want to see Batman solo films draining all the style, flair, colour and other-worldliness that make him so interesting to begin with.

Christopher Nolan did the 'realistic' Batman.

I'm praying Matt Reeves bridges that gap and gives us the best of both the 'grounded' Batman and the fantastical.

I'd be lying if I DIDN'T say that my number one preference is to see a more realistic/adult Batman trilogy. 99 percent of the movies I love are still "funny" at the end of the day. The percentage of humour vs no humour varies but I need some comedy in my movies. Yet I still prefer an overall more serious and adult approach. Even to Batman yes. So what's wrong with that now? Is that taboo? I'm in my 30's and I don't care to watch childish entertainment. I'm not the demographic for that. And even when I was an underaged teen i had moved on to more adult storytelling. I'll ask again...is that taboo here?? I'm not a fan of most Star Wars or Harry Potter or MCU stuff because it doesn't fit my sensibilities. I don't need or want Batman to feel similar.

I've been a fan of this character for 30 years and make no mistake, I'm interested in seeing Clayface, Man Bat at some point. But it's more to do with "we've come all this way, let's see how a filmmaker approaches them" as opposed to "I LOVE these villains and can't wait to see them!". Even as a kid I didn't think any of those fantastical villains were special. The first time I even heard someone say that they adored them, I was on this forum. I was probably 20 years old. That's 13 years ago, and I'd STILL take a serial killer or gangster villain over a guy made of clay any day. I like “grounded”. Sue me. I’m also a film guy more than a comic book guy. ONce again...sue me.

"Adult man likes adult stuff!! How dare he!?"

 

[The Lazarus Pit]

As a spiritual person who believes in the existence of certain paranormal and supernatural phenomena, “realism” for me is a relative term. I believe the real world contains secrets and mysteries that would be deemed “unrealistic”.

It’s possible that technology could advance to a point that certain unrealistic Batman villains could exist in the real world.

I’m all for grounding the villains in reality, but my understanding of reality allows room for the supernatural/paranormal.

Tone is more important to me than realism. Keep the noir/horror tone that they’ve struck and throw any Batman villain through that filter and I’m there day one.

 

[shauner111]

As a spiritual person who believes in the existence of certain paranormal and supernatural phenomena, “realism” for me is a relative term. I believe the real world contains secrets and mysteries that would be deemed “unrealistic”.

It’s possible that technology could advance to a point that certain unrealistic Batman villains could exist in the real world.

I’m all for grounding the villains in reality, but my understanding of reality allows room for the supernatural/paranormal.

Tone is more important to me than realism. Keep the noir/horror tone that they’ve struck and throw any Batman villain through that filter and I’m there day one.

I’m with you on that but I think id be more open to the supernatural being used in the movies if...well...if I actually liked what they did with the supernatural. For my taste, I just don’t think the supernatural aspects are all that well done or interesting in the comics.

 

[Mindreaper21]

Don’t get me wrong, I do like the supernatural villains and I do believe in the paranormal and other things of that nature, but I don’t want characters like Clayface and Man-Bat in a universe that is more realistic, because the universe focuses more on what is possible. There aren’t even that many supernatural villains, but some are more possible than others. Man-Bat would make more sense in fear toxin induced sequence for this kind of film. There are also other great villains that are not supernatural that can easily fit into this universe. I just don’t want certain characters thrown in for the sake of nostalgia. I want a cohesive story for once where everything makes sense the way it’s being told.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I'd be lying if I DIDN'T say that my number one preference is to see a more realistic/adult Batman trilogy.

Nobody here is advocating for a less 'adult' Batman series, at least not the vast majority of posters here.

Yet I still prefer an overall more serious and adult approach. Even to Batman yes.

You quoted my post - and nowhere was I making this kind of case.

My point was that you can have fantastical elements and be faithful to the source material in film, and have it still be serious and adult. The source material is, as well as the games and animated films.

I'm in my 30's and I don't care to watch childish entertainment. I'm not the demographic for that. And even when I was an underaged teen i had moved on to more adult storytelling.

I'm not a fan of most Star Wars or Harry Potter or MCU stuff because it doesn't fit my sensibilities. I don't need or want Batman to feel similar.

I'm just going to stop you right here.

You may be in your 30s, but this post comes off as something an edgelord teen would write trying to prove how adult and mature his tastes are.

Nobody here has said anything about bringing the style of Harry Potter to Batman.

But thanks for clarifying you're too adult and manly for the kiddie stuff like Star Wars or the MCU. Hopefully, the rest of us will evolve into mature adults as you have.

Side Note - Variety is good and adults recognize that less serious stuff is worth exploring alongside serious stuff. And a preference for one over the other is fine - but your implication is that in order to have adult tastes, you have to prefer serious stuff and that you 'moved on' while others haven't matured.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

I mean, The Fly is a very realistic and gritty movie. You can have these more fantastical characters and it can still be “serious”.

Trying to take something that isn’t real and try to make it real just kinda misses the point to me.