The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Fenrir]

More or less.

But I maintain that there's a higher chance of success in all the aspects we've discussed, with material that isn't rubber.

Provided of course, the viewer has no idea or knowledge that the suit of the material is NOT what it is claimed to be in the film, in the case of which you'll be stuck with the same basic problem, just with different people. t:

 

[Solidus]

Oh? So using "intimate details and full explanation" to "add touches of plausibility" is not an "aspect of writing?"

Also, you have yet to explain how realism is better.

The fact that "realism is better" is truly subjective. But in some cases when it is artistically done, through all veins of movie making to be made more realistic sometimes it works with certain movies and sometimes it does not.

As I have always seen Batman, is not ultra realistic, but plausible. He is a man no genetic alterations like pretty much most other comic book heroes. So to me brining him into this more "plausible world" works more for him. I mean even back in the day of B89, what they did compared to the 60's show was so much more realistic then the old West series, and thats even what Burton in the documentaries said he was going for was more realism and believability . And Nolan took it a step further. See with Batman it does seem that people tend to take him to a more realistic height, the most popular ones are B89 and BB. And both of these were compared to their previous counterparts more "plausible".

So it seems thats what people like to see with adaptations of Batman, is just more plausibility.

But that is just seeming where the better Batman movies seem to go, is making them so. With comics you can be more over the top, because you don't have the 3D world of film in comic books. So visuals and actions can be more so over the top. Yet with a film you can do so much more, and yet still retain the core of the character but making it more plausible so many more can connect with the world and characters with in it.

But that is always how I've seen it.

 

[Fenrir]

Oh? So using "intimate details and full explanation" to "add touches of plausibility" is not an "aspect of writing?"

Yes, in cases which additional detail contributes little or nothing to the overall story, plot points or character arcs, because that is what writing is generally understood as. No one will say the microphones in the horns or the electro-stiff cape are examples of "great writing".

Also, you have yet to explain how realism is better.

How is an approach that makes your character and his world seem a lot more plausible and believable NOT better?

 

[Fenrir]

OK, here's another question:

I think there is almost universal agreement that crime action thrillers like Heat and Collateral are definitely superior to the like of, say, Dirty Harry or Lethal Weapon. What is the reason Braveheart is considered a better film than 300? Or Jurassic Park compared to Godzilla? Or Se7en compared to Sin City?

Isn't this "gritty realism" also a strong factor in making these choices?

 

[Da Joker]

this thread makes my head hurt...

 

[Saint]

The fact that "realism is better" is truly subjective.

No kidding.

So it seems thats what people like to see with adaptations of Batman, is just more plausibility.

No, they just like films that aren't crap. It just so happens that the more fantastic Batman films were crap.

With comics you can be more over the top, because you don't have the 3D world of film in comic books.

This is a fallacy; live action does not somehow make ideas that work in comics unworkable on screen. There are plenty of films that are as over-the-top as any comic, and work fine.

 

[Solidus]

No kidding.


No, they just like films that aren't crap. It just so happens that the more fantastic Batman films were crap.

Very well may be a coincedence.....or it may just show that people don't care that much for a fantastic Batfilm. We could not possibly know until some one maybe does a good one that is more fantastic based. But so far, it seems the fantastic world that they try to put Batman in just does not go well with people.



This is a fallacy; live action does not somehow make ideas that work in comics unworkable on screen. There are plenty of films that are as over-the-top as any comic, and work fine.

Yea but people tend not to care as much for "over the top" at times. With certain things. Sometimes its loved, but sometimes people don't want to see certain things over the top. There are somethings that just work better in the terms of being grounded and others that not.

But I'm not here to say your wrong, but there is nothing wrong with being realistic. If you don't care for it, well that sucks I guess, but can't please em all. Some people on these forums act as if its a sin to use "plausibility"

 

[Saint]

Yes, in cases which additional detail contributes little or nothing to the overall story, plot points or character arcs, because that is what writing is generally understood as. No one will say the microphones in the horns or the electro-stiff cape are examples of "great writing".

But writing is what they are. They were conceived by a writer and included to make the story better. That is "writing."

How is an approach that makes your character and his world seem a lot more plausible and believable NOT better?

Because plausibility and believability are not synonymous with quality, and are not appropriate for all stories. Grant Morrison's New X-Men would not be better if retrofitted to be "plausible." Lord of the Rings would not be better if made "plausible." A world can be, as you described, "intimately detailed" and "fully explained" while being neither plausible, believable, nor realistic. Forcing realism where it does not fit can be damaging. Not all stories are realistic, nor should they be.

 

[Saint]

There are somethings that just work better in the terms of being grounded and others that not.

And Batman is not one of them. He doesn't inherently work better either way.

but there is nothing wrong with being realistic.

I already said that. Twice.

 

[Crook]

Very well may be a coincedence.....or it may just show that people don't care that much for a fantastic Batfilm. We could not possibly know until some one maybe does a good one that is more fantastic based. But so far, it seems the fantastic world that they try to put Batman in just does not go well with people.

Huh?

B89 and to a lesser extent, BF, contained fantastical worlds and did superbly with the general audience. Not to mention that when adjusted for inflation, they crushed BB's box office numbers.

Yea but people tend not to care as much for "over the top" at times. With certain things. Sometimes its loved, but sometimes people don't want to see certain things over the top.

Correction. People don't want to see "over-the-top done" crappy or corny. Nothing inherently wrong with going fantastical in your plot or visuals. LOTR and SM prove this.

There are somethings that just work better in the terms of being grounded and others that not.

The only factor I see, being the story.

 

[SheldonLevene]

I think everyone is taking themselves a bit too seriously in this thread. It all boils down to an opinion. Even if you make your post sound like a masters thesis, it isn't going to matter if the person you are arguing with simply doesn't agree. But what we can all agree on is that we have a batsuit in TDK that has many elements which would make for good discussion.

 

[Aidan2209]

I've never understood people's concern that Batman Begins (and The Dark Knight) are too "realistic" or "serious" for comic-book movies. They compare them to more stylised and tongue-in-cheek films like Tim Burton's Batman movies, the Spider-Man trilogy, and the Superman movies. It's like these represent a certain standard that ALL comic-book movies should conform to. You can name all those more over-the-top films, so there you go - it's been done (and in many cases done well). Why not take these Batman films in a different direction? And why not highlight the thing that makes Batman so unique amongst comic-book superheroes, namely his lack of superpowers, and his relative "plausibility" in this world? In view of the many other comic-book adaptations, even those based on Batman, Christopher Nolan's Batman films are something of an oddity, just as a superhero without superpowers is an oddity. There's no reason why we shouldn't embrace that.

 

[Da Joker]

I think everyone is taking themselves a bit too seriously in this thread. It all boils down to an opinion. Even if you make your post sound like a masters thesis, it isn't going to matter if the person you are arguing with simply doesn't agree. But what we can all agree on is that we have a batsuit in TDK that has many elements which would make for good discussion.

whatever fills the pages....

 

[Solidus]

Huh?

B89 and to a lesser extent, BF, contained fantastical worlds and did superbly with the general audience. Not to mention that when adjusted for inflation, they crushed BB's box office numbers.

B89 had fantastical elements, but compared to the 60's version Like I said above it was much more grounded, and even Burton himself said this in the documentaries. As for BF, ummmm I don't hear many people saying how great BF was. Just because a movie does good in Box-Office, does not mean that its always good. Most people look back now and bash the movie. It had good marketing. Just like SM3, I was even sucked in by the marketing, and it turned out to be pure crap, just because it makes money does not necessarily mean the people loved it. Just that were crowded in by hype.


Correction. People don't want to see "over-the-top done" crappy or corny. Nothing inherently wrong with going fantastical in your plot or visuals. LOTR and SM prove this.

Yes we don't like seeing crappy or corny with anything. Real or fantastical. There is nothing wrong with going more fantastical. LOTR did it though because it was a world that really was farthest from our world today visually. While Batman even in Kane's original was based in today's cities and look. I'd say a little more so.

And I guess this is a difference in opinion. But I never saw Spider-Man as fantastical *well the first 2* It just seemed to stay more in the context of its own world. Yes there was the fantastical of the genetic alterations of Peter Parker, but in terms of the world surrounding it, it seemed Sam made it more in the plausible real world. And just like I said before, the fantastical element worked well with Spiderman in terms of his character because he is a fantastical genetic alteration. And does something that no one could ever really do in this day and age.

As for Batman though very unlikely he has no genetic alterations, he is just a well trained man that fights crime. So yes you can make it fantastical I'm not saying you can't. But people seem to like to bring him to the realistic side as well. And yet again nothing wrong with either side.


The only factor I see, being the story.

But I'm sure your going to rip me apart and say I'm dead wrong for thinking this

 

[Fenrir]

But writing is what they are. They were conceived by a writer and included to make the story better. That is "writing."

Sure, it is "writing" if you're meaning in a strictly literal sense. But like I said, no one will say the parts justifying the suit, the cowl, the tumbler are examples of "great writing" because that's not how they are referred to in the context of filmmaking. Which is why it is also inappropriate to do so.

Because plausibility and believability are not synonymous with quality, and are not appropriate for all stories.

Not always, just like how it isn't the other way around as well. At the same time, I don't see it as just coincidence that the list of greatest films ever made often includes movies that are more realistic, plausible and believable than the ones that are not.

Grant Morrison's New X-Men would not be better if retrofitted to be "plausible."

Haven't read it so I wouldn't know.

Lord of the Rings would not be better if made "plausible." A world can be, as you described, "intimately detailed" and "fully explained" while being neither plausible, believable, nor realistic. Forcing realism where it does not fit can be damaging. Not all stories are realistic, nor should they be.

It's great that you mentioned LOTR, because I think it is, alongside Blade Runner, one of the more prominent examples of fantasy portrayed in a believable manner. A lot of the stylistic decisions in the LOTR films have a very natural, historical epic feel to them. The "world of men" in LOTR has obvious resemblances to early Medieval periods - from things like manner of dress to the shape and type of weapons, social hierarchy, the massive landscape etc. And I firmly believe no one can deny that it is these wide strokes of believability due to which, even when visually speaking, makes LOTR superior to an out-and-out fantasy like 300. Like I said before, it provides an entry point to the audience into the world of the film and by making it similar to our own in certain respects, it makes suspension of disbelief much, much easier - which is essentially the most important goal of any filmmaker: to completely immerse the audience into his world.

 

[SheldonLevene]

We desperately need new pictures of Bale in the suit. It will give us a something new to feverishly argue about.

 

[Fenrir]

LOTR and SM prove this.

I dunno, the LOTR films clearly seemed to be hesitant in over-indulging in its fantastical aspects and instead, only utilizing them where necessary. It is clear from the Jackson's direction that he wanted to create blatant parallels between the LOTR universe and our own, hence the early Middle Age similarities.

 

[Solidus]

I've never understood people's concern that Batman Begins (and The Dark Knight) are too "realistic" or "serious" for comic-book movies. They compare them to more stylised and tongue-in-cheek films like Tim Burton's Batman movies, the Spider-Man trilogy, and the Superman movies. It's like these represent a certain standard that ALL comic-book movies should conform to. You can name all those more over-the-top films, so there you go - it's been done (and in many cases done well). Why not take these Batman films in a different direction? And why not highlight the thing that makes Batman so unique amongst comic-book superheroes, namely his lack of superpowers, and his relative "plausibility" in this world? In view of the many other comic-book adaptations, even those based on Batman, Christopher Nolan's Batman films are something of an oddity, just as a superhero without superpowers is an oddity. There's no reason why we shouldn't embrace that.

This is a very good post. And true too. It's funny how some say Nolan's interpretation is conforming to realism. And that it should not. Yet when what some want is conforming to what all the other comic book movies conform to, being fantastical.

I think that it is a great change of pace. Brining Batman into a realistic world, its different, yet at the same time it can be done with this character like you said he has no super powers, he is one comic book hero that can be brought into the realm of reality more so then a man bit by a spider, or four people getting hit with cosmic rays.

And I'm sure in the future that we will get some fantastical Batman films. And that will be interesting to see. But I always like Batman in the terms of the real world, its always how I imagined it in my own head. But hey again thats me.

 

[Saint]

[quote="Aidan2209]I've never understood people's concern that Batman Begins (and The Dark Knight) are too "realistic" or "serious" for comic-book movies. They compare them to more stylised and tongue-in-cheek films like Tim Burton's Batman movies, the Spider-Man trilogy, and the Superman movies. It's like these represent a certain standard that ALL comic-book movies should conform to. You can name all those more over-the-top films, so there you go - it's been done (and in many cases done well). Why not take these Batman films in a different direction? And why not highlight the thing that makes Batman so unique amongst comic-book superheroes, namely his lack of superpowers, and his relative "plausibility" in this world? In view of the many other comic-book adaptations, even those based on Batman, Christopher Nolan's Batman films are something of an oddity, just as a superhero without superpowers is an oddity. There's no reason why we shouldn't embrace that.[/quote]
I don't think anyone is complaining that Nolan's films are "Too serious." If anything, they should be more serious--but, that may just be me. I want everything to be more serious, pretty much. Realism and seriousness are not connected.

Also, Burton's films were not "tongue-in-cheek."

There's no reason why we shouldn't embrace that.

If one is looking for elements that Nolan has removed for the sake of plausibility, then that seems like a pretty good reason not to "embrace that."

That's not my position (I love Batman Begins, and I like what I've seen from TDK), but I understand the sentiment. There are elements from Batman that have never been brought to screen, and there are people who thought this fresh start would be the ideal time to see those elements realized. It's not unreasonable for them to be displeased.

I can be patient, but I'd eventually like to see these elements, too. When Nolan's trilogy is done, I'd love a Batman film with the sensibilities of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow meets BTAS. I think by the time Nolan's films are done, I'll have seen enough of Batman tackling goons with guns (not that there's anything wrong with that), and I'll want to see some supervillains.

Batman's street-level, crime-drama elements are critical, no doubt, but equally critical is the impossibility of mere human singlehandedly taking down monsters and super-powered maniacs. That's part of what makes him Batman, and we haven't seen that yet. When Nolan's films are done, it'll be about time.

 

[SheldonLevene]

I can be patient, but I'd eventually like to see these elements, too. When Nolan's trilogy is done, I'd love a Batman film with the sensibilities of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow meets BTAS. I think by the time Nolan's films are done, I'll have seen enough of Batman tackling goons with guns (not that there's anything wrong with that), and I'll want to see some supervillains.

Batman's street-level, crime-drama elements are critical, no doubt, but equally critical is the impossibility of mere human singlehandedly taking down monsters and super-powered maniacs. That's part of what makes him Batman, and we haven't seen that yet. When Nolan's films are done, it'll be about time.

I think a live action take on BTAS would be cool, but do you really think we will get it. I mean consider how succesfull these Nolan films will be, I imagine WB would want to continue in sort of the same tradition and almost continue his idea, like when Burton was done.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I dunno, the LOTR films clearly seemed to be hesitant in over-indulging in its fantastical aspects and instead, only utilizing them where necessary. It is clear from the Jackson's direction that he wanted to create blatant parallels between the LOTR universe and our own, hence the early Middle Age similarities.

Jackson didn't make Lord of the Rings real world realistic, but believable in Middle Earth. I remember hearing him discuss the creatures of the films once, he mentioned how he told the creature designers to increase the wingspan of the dragon that the Witch King rode on. That way it takes a ridiculously imaginable creature like a dragon and makes it and its flight seem believable.

I love that line of thinking. Just apply real world logic to fantastical elements and they come off as believable. That's why I think a comic book fabric type suit for Batman could work as long as it's made believable in it's own world, it doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. But I am speaking in general, not for Nolan's films which are more along the lines of having both realism and believability. I'm simply saying the latter is necessary, the former is not. As Saint previously said, Nolan's vision of Gotham does involve realism, and he does a good job of it. We just don't agree that realism is necessary for Batman.

 

[Saint]

Sure, it is "writing" if you're meaning in a strictly literal sense. But like I said, no one will say the parts justifying the suit, the cowl, the tumbler are examples of "great writing" because that's not how they are referred to in the context of filmmaking. Which is why it is also inappropriate to do so.

No, they are writing--period. When the writer says "It would make sense if he had a radio in his cowl," or "It would make sense if the batmobile was a repurposed military prototype," that's writing.

Not always, just like how it isn't the other way around as well.

I can't figure out what this sentence means. If you're trying to say "Plausibility can be sometimes be an improvmenet," well, I never said otherwise.

At the same time, I don't see it as just coincidence that the list of greatest films ever made often includes movies that are more realistic, plausible and believable than the ones that are not.

If you define greatness as being the most popular among the greatest number, then your logic might be sound. I don't define it that way. The cowardice of studios that stifles the creation of truly great sci-fi and fantasy does not make the alternative genres "greater." The cowardice of studios that requires all sci-fi and fantasy films be mindless actions romps does not somehow make the "realistic" films "greater."

The problem is not the genere; it's idiot executives and idiot filmmakers.

Haven't read it so I wouldn't know.

Then your purpose in life should be to do so.

It's great that you mentioned LOTR, because I think it is, alongside Blade Runner, one of the more prominent examples of fantasy portrayed in a believable manner. A lot of the stylistic decisions in the LOTR films have a very natural, historical epic feel to them. The "world of men" in LOTR has obvious resemblances to early Medieval periods - from things like manner of dress to the shape and type of weapons, social hierarchy, the massive landscape etc. And I firmly believe no one can deny that it is these wide strokes of believability due to which, even when visually speaking, makes LOTR superior to an out-and-out fantasy like 300. Like I said before, it provides an entry point to the audience into the world of the film and by making it similar to our own in certain respects, it makes suspension of disbelief much, much easier - which is essentially the most important goal of any filmmaker: to completely immerse the audience into his world.

What you are taking about is completeness, not plausibility. LOTR is not plausible, it is complete. That means the world has been written in such away that it has rules, and the things inside it conform to those rules. It's realistic only within it's own confines, not within the real world. LOTR is not better because it is plausible or believable, but because it is complete and makes sense within itself.

This is what I mean when I say a film can be, as you described "intimately detailed' and "fully explained" without being realistic, believable, or plausible, relative the real world. Batman can be complete in the same way that LOTR is complete without being believable, realistic, or plausible. If you construct it properly, Batman can fight a man made out of clay and nobody will say "That's stupid" by the same token that nobody said "That giant flaming eye is stupid." You don't have to make it campy or over-the-top, either.

Similarly, the film that doesn't have Batman fighting a clay monster is not better simply by virtue of being more closely aligned with the real world. Different, but not better.

 

[Saint]

I think a live action take on BTAS would be cool, but do you really think we will get it. I mean consider how succesfull these Nolan films will be, I imagine WB would want to continue in sort of the same tradition and almost continue his idea, like when Burton was done.

No, I don't think we'll get it, because WB--like most studios--is too cowardly.

 

[Fenrir]

Jackson didn't make Lord of the Rings real world realistic, but believable. I remember hearing him discuss the creatures of the films once, he mentioned how he told the creature designers to increase the wingspan of the dragon that the Witch King rode on. That way it takes a ridiculously imaginable creature like a dragon and makes it and its flight seem believable.

I love that line of thinking. Just apply real world logic to fantastical elements and they come off as believable. That's why I think a comic book fabric type suit for Batman could work as long as it's made believable, it doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. But I am speaking in general, not for Nolan's films which are more along the lines of having both realism and believability. I'm simply saying the latter is necessary, the former is not. As Saint previously said, Nolan's vision of Gotham does involve realism, and he does a good job of it. We just don't agree that realism is necessary for Batman.

EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I think the problem with realism and believability are that they are often used as synonymous terms used to imply the same meaning. It also doesn't help the fact that they aren't exactly mutually exclusive concepts either and are instead, mutually reinforcing. Take your own example of Jackson's suggestion: increasing the wingspan of the dragons to make its flight more "believable". But isn't it made "believable" by applying REAL world logic a.k.a strokes of REALISM?

Or think about it this way - what are the chances of someone or something coming off as "believable" to you if it does NOT behave how you would expect it to in the real world? Isn't that judging it on the basis of realism? Plausibility is defined as something that appears likely to be true, despite absence of proof, meaning even though it's not real it LOOKS real enough to be "real". If you think about it, it is impossible for something to be plausible or believable without being realistic.

 

[Mr. Socko]

No, I don't think we'll get it, because WB--like most studios--is too cowardly.

That's why we need a great filmmaker who is also a big fan of Batman to step up to the plate. Burton, Schumacher, Nolan did not really know the world of Batman before they were attached to their respective films. Not like how Peter Jackson was a huge fan of LOTR years before he made the trilogy.

And because of this, they all took huge liberties. Tim Burton brought Tim Burton's Batman to the big screen. Christopher Nolan brought Christopher Nolan's Batman to the big screen, etc. I simply want to see "BATMAN," if you have a great director who's also been a fan of the material for years, he would be more selfless in what is brought to the silver screen and how. In my opinion...