Iron man is more real than either TDK or Watchmen.

[Tacit Ronin]

Yes, TDK has a gritty art direction and cinematography, but it's characters are still archetypes. Very well developed archetypes, but archetypes none the less.

Yes, Watchmen deconstructs all the archetypes. Yes Watchmen shows the reaction and consequence of being a superhero in the real world. But here's where Snyder's weakness as a director comes in. He is simply unable to get natural performances out of his actors. All his actors seem very uncomfortable with dialogue with him at the helm.

Great visual guy though.

Favreau, if nothing else, knows how to get natural performances out of his actors. The characters in Iron man are living, breathing people. They are still archetypes, sure, but the actors and directors give them this humanity that simply does not exist in other superhero flicks.

And the love interest, god the love interest. Pepper Potts is the ONLY love interest in these new age superhero flicks who is not downright embarrassing.


So, what I am trying to say is, Iron man is the only superhero film where the characters are real. Unbreakable too.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about the ridiculous plot, but the characters only. Watchmen could've been this, if Snyder only knew how to direct people.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

So, what I am trying to say is, Iron man is the only superhero film where the characters are real.

I actually agree with this. Favreau got very naturalistic performances out of his actors, whereas one of the things that always bothered me about Nolan's films is that the dialogue seems to be so unnatural. In real life, people don't regularly traffic in well-constructed monologues about the nature of fear or being an agent of chaos. This bothered me more in Batman Begins than The Dark Knight, mainly because the latter is just such a better film and credit has to go to Heath's Joker. I know that the screenwriter is trying to provide intelligent dialogue, but most of the discussions about fear in Batman Begins came off as hokey Jedi Knight BS.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Yes, but you seem to ignore the point that Batman is an archetype. He's a signpost for what hard work, dedication and ingenuity can do and how a person can triumph over anything. He's the height of human potential that should be aspired to. Just like Superman is both an inspirational and aspirational character.

Where Marvel characters are more naturalistic, DC characters are more related to romanticism. That is, The Romanticists did not present a hero as a statistical average, but as an abstraction of man’s best and highest potentiality, applicable to and achievable by all men, in various degrees, according to their individual choices. The major source and demonstration of moral values available to a child is Romantic art (particularly Romantic literature). What Romantic art offers him is not moral rules, not an explicit didactic message, but the image of a moral person—i.e., the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal. It offers a concrete, directly perceivable answer to the very abstract question which a child senses, but cannot yet conceptualize: What kind of person is moral and what kind of life does he lead?

It is not abstract principles that a child learns from Romantic art, but the precondition and the incentive for the later understanding of such principles: the emotional experience of admiration for man’s highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero—a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man’s choices are practicable, effective and crucially important—that is, a moral sense of life.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Yes, but you seem to ignore the point that Batman is an archetype. He's a signpost for what hard work, dedication and ingenuity can do and how a person can triumph over anything. He's the height of human potential that should be aspired to. Just like Superman is both an inspirational and aspirational character.

Where Marvel characters are more naturalistic, DC characters are more related to romanticism. That is, The Romanticists did not present a hero as a statistical average, but as an abstraction of man’s best and highest potentiality, applicable to and achievable by all men, in various degrees, according to their individual choices. The major source and demonstration of moral values available to a child is Romantic art (particularly Romantic literature). What Romantic art offers him is not moral rules, not an explicit didactic message, but the image of a moral person—i.e., the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal. It offers a concrete, directly perceivable answer to the very abstract question which a child senses, but cannot yet conceptualize: What kind of person is moral and what kind of life does he lead?

It is not abstract principles that a child learns from Romantic art, but the precondition and the incentive for the later understanding of such principles: the emotional experience of admiration for man’s highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero—a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man’s choices are practicable, effective and crucially important—that is, a moral sense of life.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Yes, but Watchmen characters should've been more human. Snyder's horrible work with the actors prevented that.

Marvel characters more naturalistic ? Maybe. But Iron man is the only marvel movie to deliver on this.

The Spiderman films are as rigid as Nolan's Batfilms, interms of genuine humanity. The love interests equally uniteresting and sometimes embarrasing.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well in both cases those are the faults of the film makers would you not agree? Across the board I see DC characters representing ideals, whereas Marvel is the more naturalist and humanist company. It works in some cases (for both) and doesn't for some, just depends on what you are into. I myself hate flawed heroes.

 

[Bill]

I actually agree with this. Favreau got very naturalistic performances out of his actors, whereas one of the things that always bothered me about Nolan's films is that the dialogue seems to be so unnatural. In real life, people don't regularly traffic in well-constructed monologues about the nature of fear or being an agent of chaos. This bothered me more in Batman Begins than The Dark Knight, mainly because the latter is just such a better film and credit has to go to Heath's Joker. I know that the screenwriter is trying to provide intelligent dialogue, but most of the discussions about fear in Batman Begins came off as hokey Jedi Knight BS.

It's interesting that you say that when the discussions of fear and dealing with it in BB were hailed as accurate by psychologists.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Also, I noticed there is a key difference in Marvel and DC films.

Marvel uses natural lighting for pretty much all of their films. DC has a more cinematic (most of the time darker) look to their films, so that plays into the difference between Marvel and DC films.

I think the different styles work for each other since DC's heroes are a little more traditional than marvel's.

 

[Abraham]

tl;dr, will in a bit though OP.

Kick-ass beats them all in the realism department, even with the jet-pack.

I'd say TDK and IM are probably equally as realistic just in different areas, and don't see how Dawes was in the least bit embarrassing...

oh an realism can go **** itself. Just give me verisimilitude, which I think is what most people confuse for realism in movies like TDK anyway.

 

[ChickenScratch]

The Jet-pack realistic? The same platform that was developed then abandoned because you could never carry enough fuel to fly for more than a minute or so unstable you could never use firearms.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Also, I noticed there is a key difference in Marvel and DC films.

Marvel uses natural lighting for pretty much all of their films. DC has a more cinematic (most of the time darker) look to their films, so that plays into the difference between Marvel and DC films.

I think the different styles work for each other since DC's heroes are a little more traditional than marvel's.

Eh, this depends strictly on the director and his DP. This is a case by case matter, I don't think you can group this.

Because, Nolan and his DP Wally Pfister doesn't even use a digital intermediate, so natural lighting is very cruicial.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Eh, this depends strictly on the director and his DP. This is a case by case matter, I don't think you can group this.

Because, Nolan and his DP Wally Pfister doesn't even use a digital intermediate, so natural lighting is very cruicial.

I know it depends on the director and DP, but Marvel films are still more natural looking than DC films. I mean BB, TDK, SR, and watchmen are much dark looking films than the Spiderman, X-men, and Iron Man films, which all are less cinematic looking.

 

[GL1]

It's sad, but the OP is right on. Iron Man's characters are whole. Tony Stark is actually unlikeable at times. We see the bad side of him. It was well done.

It's interesting that you say that when the discussions of fear and dealing with it in BB were hailed as accurate by psychologists.

I don't think the issue was accuracy of the statements so much as the fidelity of them being vocalized like that. You remember the image of Batman running away in the end of TDK, Gordon making this long speech about Dark Knights and White Knights and who deserves what kind of hero... to his son. In the dark. With the cops around cleaning up Dent. That's not human, natural or "real."

Yes, but you seem to ignore the point that Batman is an archetype. He's a signpost for what hard work, dedication and ingenuity can do and how a person can triumph over anything. He's the height of human potential that should be aspired to. Just like Superman is both an inspirational and aspirational character.

Where Marvel characters are more naturalistic, DC characters are more related to romanticism. That is, The Romanticists did not present a hero as a statistical average, but as an abstraction of man’s best and highest potentiality, applicable to and achievable by all men, in various degrees, according to their individual choices. The major source and demonstration of moral values available to a child is Romantic art (particularly Romantic literature). What Romantic art offers him is not moral rules, not an explicit didactic message, but the image of a moral person—i.e., the concretized abstraction of a moral ideal. It offers a concrete, directly perceivable answer to the very abstract question which a child senses, but cannot yet conceptualize: What kind of person is moral and what kind of life does he lead?

It is not abstract principles that a child learns from Romantic art, but the precondition and the incentive for the later understanding of such principles: the emotional experience of admiration for man’s highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero—a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man’s choices are practicable, effective and crucially important—that is, a moral sense of life.

While everything you've said is accurate, I don't think he's ignored that point. The OP states it outright, that Batman is an archetype, but then he moves on to his point, and even espouses why he appreciates the 'realist' vs 'the romantic.'

I think the best DC stories do involve flawed heroes, not in the angsty marvel 'dead girlfriend' way (here's looking at you Kyle), but the fact that these men do fall just short of the ideals that they embody. Batman makes mistakes, Superman doesn't always accept his role and place very well, Wonder Woman is too nice sometimes.

I think it goes a step further than the purely romantic notions of the Silver Age, and really brings us to a point of "How do I act as a moral person, despite my imperfections?" A question that ALL people ask themselves, regardless of age.

Contrast the answers provided by some of DC's heroes with those provided by some of Marvel's. Again, these are generalizations. There are romantic Marvel stories and realist DC stories out there, but overall in the comics:
Superman: "Accept that you cannot save everyone, you are not all powerful."
Wolverine and the Marvel Knights: "Kill all the bad guys, and your actions are justified."
Batman: "Never compromise your goals or beliefs under any circumstance. Force yourself to do right, even if it hurts you deeply."
Spider-Man: "Save your friends and help whoever else you run into along the way."

When it comes to movies, I don't think we've seen a director and scriptwriter who really gets these characters, who really believes in them. Nolan was the first one I've seen with a moral bent, but I think he had something to say other than what the character has really been about in the past. I also think that the aspirational ideals which Batman represents (pure human achievement by force of will) lend themselves to the humanist approach (human achievement because superhuman (and metaphorically: moral) achievement is impossible) and that's why he's used so frequently as such, even in the modern comics.

 

[ChickenScratch]

You make some great points GL1. I like that you point out that in DC, like in most romantic literature, the heroes themselves, though being ideals, the person can fall short. superman and Batman, even in their own world are still as much abstractions, as they are here.

Yes, Nolan's the first time I saw someone attempt to draw out the morality the characters are operating under on film. There are quite a few different takes on what is moral and he goes a long way towards what form it takes in the various characters.

 

[Abraham]

The Jet-pack realistic? The same platform that was developed then abandoned because you could never carry enough fuel to fly for more than a minute or so unstable you could never use firearms.

I said "even with the jet pack" as in "even with something that outrageous the movie is still more realistic than Iron Man or TDK", also if we're getting into technical stuff- IM's suit is pure fantasy that is without question the least realistic element of the three films mentioned here.

 

[bullets]

Yes, TDK has a gritty art direction and cinematography, but it's characters are still archetypes. Very well developed archetypes, but archetypes none the less.

Yes, Watchmen deconstructs all the archetypes. Yes Watchmen shows the reaction and consequence of being a superhero in the real world. But here's where Snyder's weakness as a director comes in. He is simply unable to get natural performances out of his actors. All his actors seem very uncomfortable with dialogue with him at the helm.

Great visual guy though.

Favreau, if nothing else, knows how to get natural performances out of his actors. The characters in Iron man are living, breathing people. They are still archetypes, sure, but the actors and directors give them this humanity that simply does not exist in other superhero flicks.

And the love interest, god the love interest. Pepper Potts is the ONLY love interest in these new age superhero flicks who is not downright embarrassing.


So, what I am trying to say is, Iron man is the only superhero film where the characters are real. Unbreakable too.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about the ridiculous plot, but the characters only. Watchmen could've been this, if Snyder only knew how to direct people.

I mainly agree with you but to say the other female leads were embarrassing doesn't make much sense.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Pepper Potts is up there with Lois Lane from Superman the movie. No other damsel comes close.

Spoiler

Selina Kyle is in a league by herself though.

 

[Brother Jack]

I dunno, I find characters like Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent in Nolan's bat-films to be extremely human, almost achingly at times. A lot of what's going on with them is operatic yes, but the emotional core is always present and motivating.

 

[Abraham]

i dunno, i find characters like bruce wayne and harvey dent in nolan's bat-films to be extremely human, almost achingly at times. A lot of what's going on with them is operatic yes, but the emotional core is always present and motivating.

qft

 

[GL1]

I mainly agree with you but to say the other female leads were embarrassing doesn't make much sense.

I think I get what he's saying. I interpreted to be a reference to how impotent, unprofessional, oblivious and generally inept female leads in superheroes are.

Rachel Dawes never did anything remotely useful, or even gratifying.
Lois Lane wasn't even close to being believable as a professional, and just generally melted under pressure.
Do I even need to get started on Mary Jane's uselessness?
Betty Ross, either one is scarcely more than a background character, with no more utility or dignity than the girl in King Kong.

We can go on and on... but when we look at Pepper Potts who in the first movie is the one who has it all together and it' Tony who needs her. In the second movie, it's Tony who needs to be more like her, and not the other way around, yes, she plays the damsel in distress, but she's also empowered, in both word and deed, and, in every way except combat power, equal with the hero.

The only effect any other love interest seems to have is emotional, and beyond that, they are laughably useless - that's embarassing. Pepper has an emotional, intellectual and physical effect on the Iron Man Universe.

 

[TNC9852002]

Subject title is a little misleading...