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

[Dr.]

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.

Fair points and a welcome clarification. And even as a non-expert, I did know (just for instance) that Batman was inaugurated in 1939; and by 1940, Robin was already on the scene. So any period of “originalism” was, indeed, quite brief. However, I don’t think this disqualifies the point about going back to first principles — the foundational roots of the character as originally conceived in Detective Comics #27. Of course, this doesn’t mean that “originalism” is the only valid interpretation. But it is a valid interpretation.

 

[Dr.]

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

It bears mentioning that “grounded” is not necessarily the same as “realism” (a somewhat elastic term). So (e.g.) Netflix’s Jessica Jones might be called “grounded” in that it has a mature, serious tone (adult themes; R-rated language, sex/nudity, violence). But since it fully embraces the traditional superhero tropes (powers, fantastical sci-fi, etc.), it's hardly “realistic.”

 

[The Batman]

However, I don’t think this disqualifies the point about going back to first principles — the foundational roots of the character as originally conceived in Detective Comics #27. Of course, this doesn’t mean that “originalism” is the only valid interpretation. But it is a valid interpretation.

I think it does disqualify the point when your initial post was more about a particular period than a single issue. To zero in on 'Tec 27 now, after being shown that Pre-Robin/Superman/Comics Code Bats was pretty unrealistic, just comes off as goalpost shifting.

Also, 'Tec 27 is only one piece of the foundational roots of Batman. For example, his famed and often referenced origin story isn't even in that issue.

 

[MadVillainy]

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.

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.

True. There was also FrankenCastle and stuff like that

 

[Dr.]

I think it does disqualify the point when your initial post was more about a particular period than a single issue. To zero in on 'Tec 27 now, after being shown that Pre-Robin/Superman/Comics Code Bats was pretty unrealistic, just comes off as goalpost shifting.

The very fact that this thread was created seems to indicate a dispute (friendly debate?) in terms of how Batman is (or should be) represented: more fantastical or more “realistic.” And just as a point of reference, we might call the Nolan Trilogy an example of the latter. E.g., no supernatural villains, no hint of a broader “universe” in which superpowers are a thing, no implausible junior sidekicks, etc.

Now did Nolan — in an act of creative (or misguided) genius — invent this interpretation of the character? In my view, not at all. Rather, he invoked the essential aspects of Batman from the earliest source material — a time before the various embellishments and accretions became more-or-less canon. This is what I called and meant by “originalism.” And it’s distinguished from “dominant representation” which (by definition) constitutes that vast majority of Batman’s 80+ years.

You appear to reject my “originalism” thesis on the basis that there was no period in Batman’s history (including the very beginning) in which he was ever depicted as “grounded/realistic” in the Nolan (or Reeves) sense. Fair enough. But if that’s the case, then I guess we do have to credit Nolan (or someone — perhaps Burton? — but not Bob Kane) for the alternate “realistic” version of Batman. Because that version isn’t hypothetical; it exists.

 

[The Batman]

The very fact that this thread was created seems to indicate a dispute (friendly debate?) in terms of how Batman is (or should be) represented: more fantastical or more “realistic.”

Nobody's disputing this.

Now did Nolan — in an act of creative (or misguided) genius — invent this interpretation of the character? In my view, not at all. Rather, he invoked the essential aspects of Batman from the earliest source material — a time before the various embellishments and accretions became more-or-less canon. This is what I called and meant by “originalism.” And it’s distinguished from “dominant representation” which (by definition) constitutes that vast majority of Batman’s 80+ years.

Nolan's Batman was the result of Nolan being influenced by various films and comics, including the following: Superman: The Movie, Blade Runner, Lawrence of Arabia, Batman: Year One, The Man Who Falls, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory.

You appear to reject my “originalism” thesis on the basis that there was no period in Batman’s history (including the very beginning) in which he was ever depicted as “grounded/realistic” in the Nolan (or Reeves) sense.

I said that the Early Kane/Finger period was not as grounded or realistic as you made it out to be, much of that period has supernatural or supervillain elements.

Your "thesis" doesn't work because you're basing it on a Batman that was never that realistic or grounded. As for Nolan, we know your thesis doesn't work there because we know what source material had the most influence on him, and it was all from that post-early period.

 

[CaptainWagner]

You appear to reject my “originalism” thesis on the basis that there was no period in Batman’s history (including the very beginning) in which he was ever depicted as “grounded/realistic” in the Nolan (or Reeves) sense. Fair enough. But if that’s the case, then I guess we do have to credit Nolan (or someone — perhaps Burton? — but not Bob Kane) for the alternate “realistic” version of Batman. Because that version isn’t hypothetical; it exists.

Not to wade too far into the many layers of this debate but... shouldn't we hold off on stating what is and isn't "realistic in the Reeves sense" until we've, you know, actually seen the movie? I see so many comments about what can't/won't work in world we haven't even seen a single full movie from yet. There's no reason to think that fantastical villains can't exist in Reeves' world. Like... there's a big gap between deciding not to put Riddler in a spandex onesie and deciding not to include any of Batman's super-powered enemies.

Also - Burton definitely didn't do any sort of "realistic" take, IMO. Dude had Penguin spitting up black goo and commanding actual penguins. And I loved it, but even the '66 version of Penguin was more realistic than Burton's.

 

[DKDetective]

Not to wade too far into the many layers of this debate but... shouldn't we hold off on stating what is and isn't "realistic in the Reeves sense" until we've, you know, actually seen the movie? I see so many comments about what can't/won't work in world we haven't even seen a single full movie from yet. There's no reason to think that fantastical villains can't exist in Reeves' world. Like... there's a big gap between deciding not to put Riddler in a spandex onesie and deciding not to include any of Batman's super-powered enemies.

Also - Burton definitely didn't do any sort of "realistic" take, IMO. Dude had Penguin spitting up black goo and commanding actual penguins. And I loved it, but even the '66 version of Penguin was more realistic than Burton's.

The biggest problem here and why I hate this topic and confined it to this Arkham Asylum of a thread is that so many posters seem to think there is a 1-dimensional spectrum of "realism" or "fantasticalness"... They think that a movie is either more realistic or less realistic/more fantastical. They see as though if Reeves is more grounded or realistic than Nolan in one way, then it must sit further on the realism scale than Nolan in every other way.

It is not a 1D line spectrum or even a 2D X/Y chart. There are many types of "realism" or "grounding", whether technological, psychological, emotional, etc. One does not equal another. Also, realism does not equal scale. Just because reeves is telling a smaller scale story about Batman chasing down a serial killer does not make the movie automatically more "realistic". You can tell a small scale, emotionally grounded story about a man turning into a Fly. It can be a serious, adult movie and despite the very heightened premise, the movie can be made without any of the tongue-in-cheek or winking at the audience that you find in say an MCU film.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

I agree that we don't know what's too fantastical or too realistic for Reeves' universe.

Even Nolan's first film is tonally and visually different from its sequels - in Begins, it felt more open ended what villains could exist in his universe I felt.

 

[Mani-Man]

Dont know if its been talked about, but how do the High Tech contact lenses we saw in one of the tv spots fit into the discussion?

I dont know how to feel about them, i loved them in Scott Snyders Batman run but i dont know if they work in this movie.

 

[WatchProtect]

Imo anything shown in the film works in the film. Those lenses show that advanced tech exists in this world.

Things can be unrealistic to us but if they work in the logic of the movie then there's really nothing else that matters.

If Matt put Man-Bat for instance in one of his sequels and presents it in a body horror once in a lifetime Freak accident/occurrence then that's just the way this universe works.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

At this point I'm not sure how "realistic" this series is meant to be. There's already talks about how Ra's AlGhul won't fit this world because of how it limits the fantastical stuff, and there could be room for involving mystic stuff like the Lazarus Pit and whatnot.

Daredevil on Netflix literally gave us an immortal Ninja and resurrections in a world that grounded him, disabled his ability to perform long leaps, and he had to fight alongside superhuman people to stop the resurrection of a skeleton of a dragon under the city and survive a building collapsing and burying him. We as audience accepted this kind of story with Matt's limited abilities (who can still somehow go to a roof to jump from roof to roof on foot chasing after a car and catches up to it), and a couple of the shots we've seen released so far make this Batman look more powerful than that Daredevil.

I don't know if it's fair to dismiss other kinds of villains, heck, we even have a thread for Mr. Freeze in this section, that guy gains superhuman strength from his condition that requires him to constantly have a cryosuit on.

 

[BatLobster]

Welp, Reeves has weighed in on the whole superhero thing.

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most,” says Reeves.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

^Even with that in mind, most horror film characters are easily more realistic than this version (or any version) of Batman is, and they have to deal with powerful things beyond anyone's regular capabilities.
I'm still not going to rule out the possibility of having someone like Mr. Feeze, Man-Bat or Clayface (either Matt Hagen or Preston Payne) in future movies until Mr. Reeves is through with his vision.

 

[Mani-Man]

In the end we can only wait for the Movie to get a good idea which character has more chances in the future.
But Nolan managed to pull off Two face, Joker, Scarecrow, Bane, Ra's Al Ghul...so i wouldnt rule out anybody for future Reeves Batman characters.

I think that is one reason that makes Batman such a interesting concept, because it leaves the door so very wide open with what is possible.
You can play much more around with concepts of what is possible, how some things are possible.

 

[BatLobster]

I think it's just a conceptual thing. I feel like directors and creators tend to say that because it makes them connect more with the very human part of Bruce Wayne's character and what he represents.

I think most things are on the table for future Reeves films, but I still wouldn't bet on Man-Bat or Clayface.

 

[Gothamsknight]

In the end we can only wait for the Movie to get a good idea which character has more chances in the future.
But Nolan managed to pull off Two face, Joker, Scarecrow, Bane, Ra's Al Ghul...so i wouldnt rule out anybody for future Reeves Batman characters.

I think that is one reason that makes Batman such a interesting concept, because it leaves the door so very wide open with what is possible.
You can play much more around with concepts of what is possible, how some things are possible.

Yup. I don't really know if we'll ever see Man Bat or Clayface, but I don't think we should write that possibility off just yet. There's always ways to adapt those things into something more "real". With Man Bat it might be hard, but Clayface there could be a way. Even if he's not a huge monster haha.

 

[Invader Joker]

Welp, Reeves has weighed in on the whole superhero thing.

I have to find the actual quote, but I'm pretty sure that recently he reiterated the point that he "absolutely wnated to make this movie to feel like it took place in the real world"

 

[antsman41]

AGAIN, Matt Reeves directed two films that were anchored by a CGI APE...

We'll have more possibility now for a Man-Bat or Clayface in live action than we ever have gotten in the past 60+ years.

Plus, he's the most rightful torch bearer for new dramatic renditions of these characters... since BTAS. I can see him pulling off what Heart of Ice or Feat of Clay did on that show.

 

[BatLobster]

Regardless of who it is, I do think it's important that Reeves prominently features a villain in his next film who hasn't been done in live-action before. Especially since he's going to likely have at least Penguin and Catwoman returning.

 

[poncholuke]

Lexcorp has been confirmed in the novel Before The Batman. If that book is officially a prequel then we got a universe where a superpowered alien exists. Now whether reeves will ever use batman's superpowered villains or not is a whole other story.

 

[Invader Joker]

Lexcorp has been confirmed in the novel Before The Batman. If that book is officially a prequel then we got a universe where a superpowered alien exists. Now whether reeves will ever use batman's superpowered villains or not is a whole other story.

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

 

[OnLeatherWings]

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

Maybe you're right - but I doubt it.

These days, interconnected and cinematic universes are massive. And audiences expect and want them with comic book films.

WB knows this. No way are they going to throw in LexCorp just for sh*ts and giggles without it potentially meaning something.

 

[Invader Joker]

Maybe you're right - but I doubt it.

These days, interconnected and cinematic universes are massive. And audiences expect and want them with comic book films.

WB knows this. No way are they going to throw in LexCorp just for sh*ts and giggles without it potentially meaning something.

It's just from a prequel book on a throwaway line for fun, it doesn't mean anything, same with the set newspapers that mention Metropolis.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

It's just from a prequel book on a throwaway line for fun, it doesn't mean anything, same with the set newspapers that mention Metropolis.

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.