The Dark Knight Rises Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

[Crook]

The Nolan-franchise does rely on realism. The Batman movie franchise has had ups and downs throughout. There is a reason that Nolan's Batman movies are more popular, and more successful, than their predecessors.

Yes, because they are better written and portray characters who the audiences can relate to more.

There is a reason that TDK was the most successful comic-book movie in history.

Yes, the return of the Joker and an actor whose death in said iconic role undoubtedly makes this blockbuster movie a must-see. That and it just so happened to live up to the hype.

None of this has anything to do with realism.

It is clearly not due simply to the "Batman" name. It is due, in large part, to the realism and realistic feel of the story.

No one went to see TDK because it was "realistic". Who are you fooling? Do you honestly think people even remotely had that in consideration? They know it's Batman, they know it's Joker, they know it's Heath's last starring role, and they know it's massively hyped. Those are the only factors that went into people's minds.

And just on a sidenote, you might want to take a look at which films in history have been the most popular and grossed the biggest. It's quite clearly a 3:1 ratio in favor of fantasy films. Just saying.

 

[goh78]

Why in the hell should they abandon a running theme and feel of the first two very successful movies just to "mix things up"? Some fans want a change just for the sake of change. And it makes no sense at all.

 

[LightningFlash]

Huh??? That's the best you can come up with? Besides, only his one side was covered in gasoline so that's the most likely part to get caught on fire... and I think that any person with a slight of brain (aint saying that you dont have any, so dont take offence), would think and believe that batman puts out that fire on his face rather quickly.

That's not the best I can come up, but the easiest way to show how Nolan isn't relying, or for the most of it, much on "realism". His whole side should've been consumed by fire instead of just the skin on his face and a side of his clothing, which makes no sense.

And I don't take OFFENSE

 

[Bathead]

That's not the best I can come up, but the easiest way to show how Nolan isn't relying, or for the most of it, much on "realism". His whole side should've been consumed by fire instead of just the skin on his face and a side of his clothing, which makes no sense.

And I don't take OFFENSE

You're correcting his spelling? Unfortunately for you, in England "offence" is how it's spelled. So, you get a big "FAIL" for that.

 

[Travesty]

You're correcting his spelling? Unfortunately for you, in England "offence" is how it's spelled. So, you get a big "FAIL" for that.

Oh sniz snap!

 

[Master Blaster]

Hi everyone, I was just wondering if the "realism" in this movie series should be atken down a notch. You see, the other day a friend and I got into a debate about what the Riddler's look should be. I wanted the man to have black slacks, a green blazer, and a question mark lapel pin but that would be too "supervillain" for Nolan's films. Also, there's the thing about making the villains "realistic". I've heard a suggestion about Mr. Freeze locking people in a meat locker, which takes away a good amount of appeal to the charcater in my opinion. By the looks of it Batman himself is too unrealistic for these films (a man dresses up as a giant bat and fights criminals...come on). So what do you guys think? How realistic can we go before it becomes too realistic? Can it become too realistic?

You know, I was just about to make a thread dedicated to this whole discussion.
First of all, let me just state for the record that I love The Dark Knight. It's excellent. It is definitely deserving of its' reputation as one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. But is it wrong for me to say that I kind of long for the style of the first Tim Burton Batman movie? Now don’t get me wrong! I mean Tim Burton's Batman is no where near as deep, powerful or intriguing as Chris Nolan's Batman, but I don't think Nolan's has the fantastic, operatic style or verisimilitude that Tim's had. I guess I wish that I could create some kind of composite movie that had the depth, story and acting of Nolan and the style, flamboyance and exaggerated-ness of Burton.
But I’m getting off topic. What I’m trying to say here is that there are moments when I think that Nolan’s Batman is just…well….too realistic. I sometimes think they are trying too hard to make Batman and his world too real to the point to where it just isn’t fun anymore. Now maybe I’m just looking at things through rose-colored glasses and maybe I’m just nitpicking here but being a fan of the comic I sometimes miss seeing Batman wearing just plain old black and grey tights. Why can’t The Joker not just be a guy in make-up? Why couldn’t we have him be the Red Hood who fell into a vat of chemicals? Why couldn’t they just have Boss Maroni throw acid in Harvey Dent’s face? Why does the Batmobile have to look like an SUV? And why is it that Superman and Robin can’t exist in the same universe as Nolan’s Batman?
And it’s not just Batman. From what I’ve seen so far Marvel has taken the realistic route with Ironman and they are probably going to take it further with the sequel. And I’ve heard very little about the Thor movie they are supposed to be making. They say they are trying to find the right way to market him and make him fit in better in the film universe of Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and the Avengers. In other words, trying to make him more realistic.
To sum up my point, while realism in comic movies is a good thing you can have too much of a good thing. These characters are fantasy characters and I think they need to be fantastical or else they lose their appeal. You can only make a fantasy character and his/her world so real. If you make it too real, it stops being fun and I think if film makers keep trying to top each other in the realism department, they could really hurt the genre.
Personally, I think Nolan and the others should take a cue from Zack Snyder’s take on Watchmen or Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City. Try to go for “Translations” rather than “Adaptations”. Lift stories and characters from the actual comics. Literally try to shoot the original comic in movie form.

But to quote Dennis Miller,
“Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

 

[baerrtt]

You know, I was just about to make a thread dedicated to this whole discussion.
First of all, let me just state for the record that I love The Dark Knight. It's excellent. It is definitely deserving of its' reputation as one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. But is it wrong for me to say that I kind of long for the style of the first Tim Burton Batman movie? Now don’t get me wrong! I mean Tim Burton's Batman is no where near as deep, powerful or intriguing as Chris Nolan's Batman, but I don't think Nolan's has the fantastic, operatic style or verisimilitude that Tim's had. I guess I wish that I could create some kind of composite movie that had the depth, story and acting of Nolan and the style, flamboyance and exaggerated-ness of Burton.
But I’m getting off topic. What I’m trying to say here is that there are moments when I think that Nolan’s Batman is just…well….too realistic. I sometimes think they are trying too hard to make Batman and his world too real to the point to where it just isn’t fun anymore. Now maybe I’m just looking at things through rose-colored glasses and maybe I’m just nitpicking here but being a fan of the comic I sometimes miss seeing Batman wearing just plain old black and grey tights. Why can’t The Joker not just be a guy in make-up? Why couldn’t we have him be the Red Hood who fell into a vat of chemicals? Why couldn’t they just have Boss Maroni throw acid in Harvey Dent’s face? Why does the Batmobile have to look like an SUV? And why is it that Superman and Robin can’t exist in the same universe as Nolan’s Batman?
And it’s not just Batman. From what I’ve seen so far Marvel has taken the realistic route with Ironman and they are probably going to take it further with the sequel. And I’ve heard very little about the Thor movie they are supposed to be making. They say they are trying to find the right way to market him and make him fit in better in the film universe of Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and the Avengers. In other words, trying to make him more realistic.
To sum up my point, while realism in comic movies is a good thing you can have too much of a good thing. These characters are fantasy characters and I think they need to be fantastical or else they lose their appeal. You can only make a fantasy character and his/her world so real. If you make it too real, it stops being fun and I think if film makers keep trying to top each other in the realism department, they could really hurt the genre.
Personally, I think Nolan and the others should take a cue from Zack Snyder’s take on Watchmen or Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City. Try to go for “Translations” rather than “Adaptations”. Lift stories and characters from the actual comics. Literally try to shoot the original comic in movie form.

But to quote Dennis Miller,
“Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

'Translations' of comic book/strip material tends to alienate major audiences (everything from Altman's POPEYE and DICK TRACY to WATCHMEN) who are so visually distracted that they can't fully invest in the actual story being told with 300 and SIN CITY being an exception because, to an audience unaware of the source material, they're straightforward R-rated action movies where such a technique lifts them out of the ordinary.

Nolan established a visual tone in BB and TDK(one that stretches through all his movies regardless of source material) partially I suspect because he wanted audiences to actually invest in the story fully without becoming 'distracted'. Directors like Rogriguez and Snyder are pastiche filmmakers anyway (which isn't a criticism) who literally try to put their source material/inspirations onscreen. 'Translating' doesn't fit Nolan irrespective of whether it's Batman as his lead character.

 

[returntovoid]

But is it wrong for me to say that I kind of long for the style of the first Tim Burton Batman movie? Now don’t get me wrong! I mean Tim Burton's Batman is no where near as deep, powerful or intriguing as Chris Nolan's Batman, but I don't think Nolan's has the fantastic, operatic style or verisimilitude that Tim's had. I guess I wish that I could create some kind of composite movie that had the depth, story and acting of Nolan and the style, flamboyance and exaggerated-ness of Burton.

I'm not a fan of Tim Burton's Batman films but I think the dark visual atmosphere and the score by Danny Elfman was great.

To sum up my point, while realism in comic movies is a good thing you can have too much of a good thing. These characters are fantasy characters and I think they need to be fantastical or else they lose their appeal. You can only make a fantasy character and his/her world so real. If you make it too real, it stops being fun and I think if film makers keep trying to top each other in the realism department, they could really hurt the genre.

I agree, excessism realism is not good, small amount of realism is alright.

“Translations” rather than “Adaptations”

A valid point.

 

[evilskillz]

You know, I was just about to make a thread dedicated to this whole discussion.
First of all, let me just state for the record that I love The Dark Knight. It's excellent. It is definitely deserving of its' reputation as one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. But is it wrong for me to say that I kind of long for the style of the first Tim Burton Batman movie? Now don’t get me wrong! I mean Tim Burton's Batman is no where near as deep, powerful or intriguing as Chris Nolan's Batman, but I don't think Nolan's has the fantastic, operatic style or verisimilitude that Tim's had. I guess I wish that I could create some kind of composite movie that had the depth, story and acting of Nolan and the style, flamboyance and exaggerated-ness of Burton.
But I’m getting off topic. What I’m trying to say here is that there are moments when I think that Nolan’s Batman is just…well….too realistic. I sometimes think they are trying too hard to make Batman and his world too real to the point to where it just isn’t fun anymore. Now maybe I’m just looking at things through rose-colored glasses and maybe I’m just nitpicking here but being a fan of the comic I sometimes miss seeing Batman wearing just plain old black and grey tights. Why can’t The Joker not just be a guy in make-up? Why couldn’t we have him be the Red Hood who fell into a vat of chemicals? Why couldn’t they just have Boss Maroni throw acid in Harvey Dent’s face? Why does the Batmobile have to look like an SUV? And why is it that Superman and Robin can’t exist in the same universe as Nolan’s Batman?
And it’s not just Batman. From what I’ve seen so far Marvel has taken the realistic route with Ironman and they are probably going to take it further with the sequel. And I’ve heard very little about the Thor movie they are supposed to be making. They say they are trying to find the right way to market him and make him fit in better in the film universe of Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America and the Avengers. In other words, trying to make him more realistic.
To sum up my point, while realism in comic movies is a good thing you can have too much of a good thing. These characters are fantasy characters and I think they need to be fantastical or else they lose their appeal. You can only make a fantasy character and his/her world so real. If you make it too real, it stops being fun and I think if film makers keep trying to top each other in the realism department, they could really hurt the genre.
Personally, I think Nolan and the others should take a cue from Zack Snyder’s take on Watchmen or Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City. Try to go for “Translations” rather than “Adaptations”. Lift stories and characters from the actual comics. Literally try to shoot the original comic in movie form.

But to quote Dennis Miller,
“Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

I respect your opinion because you're a comic book fan. But this is where I totally disagree and look at it from a pure movie making standpoint. You think the fantasy elements of the characters are left behind in favor of more realistic takes. Of course that's true, but only because it works better on screen. You're forgetting part of what makes Nolan's universe have so much more depth than burton's is because it feels real in an unrealistic universe. I don't think you can just substitude that over the top style and still have the same feel and tone of the nolan films. I think you are looking at it through comic book eyes and forgetting why nolan has made two very good films.

The reason you don't have a joker with perma white skin is because you don't want to pluck a character out of a comic book page and put him on screen. The audience doesn't identify with the character as much, as I've said in other threads, he is less human when you make him into a transformated freak (perma white). It's much more impactful to see him as a freak that chooses to look that way. He's more human, he's more of a real villain, and it affects you more. The fantasy elements create nostalgia from the burton films and they do create that wonderful world of the comics. But they don't impact you as much as a movie goer (the general public) because they don't feel real.

I also think it's the character of Batman. Nolan and his crew saw a great opportunity with batman. They saw that they could create realistic elements with him and make great movies out of it. Movies that felt more like crime epics and not as much like a comic book. And I really think that's why "the dark knight" has so much appeal. Some of it is of course Heath Ledger and all the crazyness that came with that. But a lot of the lasting impact of that film is because he made a great movie with it. And I think the realistic tone (no matter how realistic it truly is) is what separates these batman stories from the Burton movies. You can't create that same tone, that same depth of script and try to make it a grandiose fantasy as well. It all works together, and it's worked beautifully so far.

 

[Crook]

You can't create that same tone, that same depth of script and try to make it a grandiose fantasy as well.

Way to invalidate a genre, man. I'd like to point out that sci-fi, which is as grandiose as you can get, has provided literature and film with some of the most thought-provoking and timeless stories we've ever had.

The realm of reality/fantasy has nothing to do with limiting what you can do within the narrative or the characters. It's about making relevant stories and pulling on the right emotional strings that the audience can relate to. Whether you have a man in a batsuit, or an intergalactic federation in the sky, the common factor in all successful movies has always paralleled human issues. That's the heart of it.

 

[evilskillz]

Way to invalidate a genre, man. I'd like to point out that sci-fi, which is as grandiose as you can get, has provided literature and film with some of the most thought-provoking and timeless stories we've ever had.

The realm of reality/fantasy has nothing to do with limiting what you can do within the narrative or the characters. It's about making relevant stories and pulling on the right emotional strings that the audience can relate to. Whether you have a man in a batsuit, or an intergalactic federation in the sky, the common factor in all successful movies has always paralleled human issues. That's the heart of it.

Ok, perhaps I went too far. I just think Nolan's way of getting at the human issues you describe is far more successful than burtons. Perhaps you're right, maybe a more fantasy driven batman franchise could have the same depth of story that the Nolan films have created. I just have a feeling I wouldn't like it as much. It's just not what I'm drawn to as much. The best example I can use is Jurassic Park.

Great film according to most people. Your typical fantasy/sci-fi big action movie that still holds up very well today. A lot of people would consider it one of the best of it's kind. Now this movie to me has mass appeal because it's a sci fi story. Fantasy yes, but it makes you feel like this could happen in the real world (in the context of watching the film). There is a real connection with nature, and prehistoric creatures inside a fantasy amusement park set up. It works because it's a great script and great direction that pulls at the human elements which most films fail to attain. Is it the big fantasy narrative that makes it successful or is it the taking of these fantasy creatures and putting them in a real world context that made it a classic blockbuster? I guess it just all worked well together. My point is, fantasy movies can be very successful but they usually focus on bringing fantasy to real life surroundings.

I shouldn't have been as black and white in my assessment. The way I look at the burton films, they don't have that much of a different approach than Nolan. They are still taking a fictional character and trying to put him in the real world. You have some dark, real, gritty scenes in the first two Batmans. The difference for me is how much you stray from the comic books, and how does that affect your audience. The best example in these films for me is the scene with joker's hand coming out of the vat of chemicals.. That comes off as cartoony to me and I think it makes it less about reality and more about fantasy. I think Nolan took it further in making batman come into a "real world". Obviously, Burton's goal wasn't to create a literal transfer from comic book to film either. I just think his style is more fantasy oriented. And I think Nolan's "real" preference has more mass appeal, I also think it creates more depth to the story.

I could be wrong, maybe there is some great director in the future that can pluck these characters out of the comic book literally and still make a great movie that lasts through the ages. I doubt it though.

 

[Crook]

Ok, perhaps I went too far. I just think Nolan's way of getting at the human issues you describe is far more successful than burtons.

Overall, he has. I'm not doubting that. But human issues have nothing to do with a setting in fantasy or realism. It transcends genres because it's universal.

Great film according to most people. Your typical fantasy/sci-fi big action movie that still holds up very well today. A lot of people would consider it one of the best of it's kind. Now this movie to me has mass appeal because it's a sci fi story. Fantasy yes, but it makes you feel like this could happen in the real world (in the context of watching the film). There is a real connection with nature, and prehistoric creatures inside a fantasy amusement park set up. It works because it's a great script and great direction that pulls at the human elements which most films fail to attain. Is it the big fantasy narrative that makes it successful or is it the taking of these fantasy creatures and putting them in a real world context that made it a classic blockbuster? I guess it just all worked well together. My point is, fantasy movies can be very successful but they usually focus on bringing fantasy to real life surroundings.

Fantasy in and of itself has mass appeal because it's escapism at it's finest. It has no real limit, and frankly offers whatever real-life cannot provide. As you noted, one method is to bring fantasy to the real-life. And yes, that works. Jurassic Park is a great example of utilizing plausible circumstances to the application of a fantasy narrative. There is no doubt that works.

But there's also the other side to that coin, which is bringing the realism to the fantasy. It's what I spoke of earlier in that at it's core, the most successful stories use "real" emotion. The Star Wars and LOTR trilogies are prime examples of what I mean. They may take place in a made-up world that's littered with monsters, magical forces, etc...but under all of that glam are character arcs and socially relevant issues that are none too removed from our own. Yes, the Ring is an awesome and totally unreal object. So is the lightsaber. But that's not what makes these stories so adored by fans. Luke's journey and his relationship with his father, mentor, and sibling, are ultimately where we connect with most. Ditto for Frodo with his best friend and conflict wielding such high resposibility. THAT is what makes it real. And ultimately, why "fantasy" doesn't intrude on the structure and layering of a story.

I shouldn't have been as black and white in my assessment. The way I look at the burton films, they don't have that much of a different approach than Nolan. They are still taking a fictional character and trying to put him in the real world. You have some dark, real, gritty scenes in the first two Batmans. The difference for me is how much you stray from the comic books, and how does that affect your audience. The best example in these films for me is the scene with joker's hand coming out of the vat of chemicals.. That comes off as cartoony to me and I think it makes it less about reality and more about fantasy. I think Nolan took it further in making batman come into a "real world". Obviously, Burton's goal wasn't to create a literal transfer from comic book to film either. I just think his style is more fantasy oriented. And I think Nolan's "real" preference has more mass appeal, I also think it creates more depth to the story.

I could be wrong, maybe there is some great director in the future that can pluck these characters out of the comic book literally and still make a great movie that lasts through the ages. I doubt it though.

I point to the paragraph above. You can take as many unrealistic and fantastical elements as you want, I guarantee you there's a means of writing it in such a way that motivations and drives of a character are all real. I understand what Nolan did with Joker, and it worked out great. But that is not to say that was the only way the character could have been brought on-screen. Even to the degree of his menace or gravitas in captivating the audiences.

The elements that made Heath's character so great? STRAIGHT from the comics. Same comics where Joker is a literal freak, however unrealistic that may be. There was nothing in TDK's characterization of Joker that didn't in some form owe it's nature to the source material. The real difference between Nolan and Burton's interpretations, is Nolan was more technically proficient in combining 70 years of history into single stories. All there is to it.

The whole fantasy vs. reality issue in this context, is quite simply incidental.

 

[evilskillz]

Overall, he has. I'm not doubting that. But human issues have nothing to do with a setting in fantasy or realism. It transcends genres because it's universal.

Fantasy in and of itself has mass appeal because it's escapism at it's finest. It has no real limit, and frankly offers whatever real-life cannot provide. As you noted, one method is to bring fantasy to the real-life. And yes, that works. Jurassic Park is a great example of utilizing plausible circumstances to the application of a fantasy narrative. There is no doubt that works.

But there's also the other side to that coin, which is bringing the realism to the fantasy. It's what I spoke of earlier in that at it's core, the most successful stories use "real" emotion. The Star Wars and LOTR trilogies are prime examples of what I mean. They may take place in a made-up world that's littered with monsters, magical forces, etc...but under all of that glam are character arcs and socially relevant issues that are none too removed from our own. Yes, the Ring is an awesome and totally unreal object. So is the lightsaber. But that's not what makes these stories so adored by fans. Luke's journey and his relationship with his father, mentor, and sibling, are ultimately where we connect with most. Ditto for Frodo with his best friend and conflict wielding such high resposibility. THAT is what makes it real. And ultimately, why "fantasy" doesn't intrude on the structure and layering of a story.

I point to the paragraph above. You can take as many unrealistic and fantastical elements as you want, I guarantee you there's a means of writing it in such a way that motivations and drives of a character are all real. I understand what Nolan did with Joker, and it worked out great. But that is not to say that was the only way the character could have been brought on-screen. Even to the degree of his menace or gravitas in captivating the audiences.

The elements that made Heath's character so great? STRAIGHT from the comics. Same comics where Joker is a literal freak, however unrealistic that may be. There was nothing in TDK's characterization of Joker that didn't in some form owe it's nature to the source material. The real difference between Nolan and Burton's interpretations, is Nolan was more technically proficient in combining 70 years of history into single stories. All there is to it.

The whole fantasy vs. reality issue in this context, is quite simply incidental.

Well said. I was thinking of LOTR as I was writing this, just knew I had a tougher job making my argument if I did. You make a plausible point, real human emotions can be felt in the biggest fantasy pictures. Nolan is a better story teller and that's why his movies are better than most. He does a great job of creating tension in a scene and building it from one moment to the next. Nolan basically asked the question, "what if Batman existed in the real world" and then made these films. You can argue how real it truly is of course, but that basic premise is there.

My question becomes, is it even possible to achieve it? Do you think it's possible for a director to come along and be completely faithful to the look of the characters in the comics and still achieve the same quality film making? Perhaps, but Burton is seen as the more fantasy oriented approach, and like I said in my previous post, he still tried to bring Batman to the real world and made many deviations from the source material. You say the difference is incidental based on the fantasy vs reality debate. But I have to disagree because Nolan is still seen as more on the reality side, and burton more on the fantasy side. Even if they both were bringing Batman to the real world, one just went further on certain areas, like the look of the Joker for example. So the debate might not be fair or important, but it does give a title for people to discuss the idea of plucking a character out of the page of the comic book and how that would come across on screen.

Like you said, the best part of the characters are always going to be driven from the source material. That is how we came to know the characters. And when that can be realized on screen, it's an amazing thing. But I don't think the look of the characters has to be taken from the source material. It's more important for me to recognize the characters, but also make them appear more real.

Maybe at the end of the day it's all preference. I just really like this joker, I really like Nolan's take on Batman. It's the most interesting thing I've seen in this universe and the most multi layered. I should keep an open mind though, who knows if it's possible to do it a completely different way and be just as well made. With Nolan leaving the franchise after the next film, they might as well take a completely different approach. I wouldn't want the same tone in future installments after Nolan. Create your own vision.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Nolan's Batman movies aren't realistic and thank goodness they aren't. Are they more realistic than other superhero movies? Sure, but that's only because the subject matter itself is more realistic than other superheros since Batman and his villains don't have superpowers.

 

[ronny]

What some call "realism", I call "great costume design".
Like, Mr. Freeze is a ridiculous looking villain. But if Nolan's team worked on him they may give him an appearance that actually works.
Sort of like The Joker, did you really want to see that string tie?
It's not overly realistic. But it does create character designs that you don't laugh at.

 

[Crook]

My question becomes, is it even possible to achieve it? Do you think it's possible for a director to come along and be completely faithful to the look of the characters in the comics and still achieve the same quality film making?

I don't see why not. Great writers and directors exist. It's a matter of getting them onto the project, and whether they have the skill to successfully adapt the material. Again, good stories transcend genres and artistic style. If there's a Nolan, there's someone else on the other side of the spectrum that'd be fitting for this franchise. It's only logical. You have opposites for everything.

You say the difference is incidental based on the fantasy vs reality debate. But I have to disagree because Nolan is still seen as more on the reality side, and burton more on the fantasy side. Even if they both were bringing Batman to the real world, one just went further on certain areas, like the look of the Joker for example. So the debate might not be fair or important, but it does give a title for people to discuss the idea of plucking a character out of the page of the comic book and how that would come across on screen.

It's incidental because there is no correlation between story/character quality and fantasy/realism. It's like a film critic going to see B&R and stating, "see? this is why a batman or comic book film won't ever work. this sucks and they shouldn't try it. leave the comics on the page".

If there is precedence for the material being good or even great, then the transference to a different medium, most of the time, would not matter.

Like you said, the best part of the characters are always going to be driven from the source material. That is how we came to know the characters. And when that can be realized on screen, it's an amazing thing. But I don't think the look of the characters has to be taken from the source material. It's more important for me to recognize the characters, but also make them appear more real.

I personally think it's foolish to not place a significant amount of importance of aesthetics when dealing with a visual medium. Be it comics or film, visuals are half the product. Nolan may have went for a more practical approach in displaying the clown motif of Joker, but he wasn't dumb enough to skimp on the iconography of the character. He realized that just as much as it's necessary to capture the core elements of Joker, it was just as important to create a memorable visage that would do him justice.

 

[StorminNorman]

I love me some Crook.

 

[Doc Samson]

There is an extreme difference in reality & "hyper-realism" or whatever you want to call it, that Nolan is doing. I also think that most of you guys only want a more fantastical film in order to include villains you like that might not work in this series, which isn't a really great reason to change the whole direction of the franchise. That being said, yes, these films are more successful not only because of the better writing and acting but also because of the more realistic approach.

First of all, none of the actors would probably be involved if not for Nolan, and Nolan would have had no interest in doing Batman if not for the more grounded approach WB allowed him to take, so right off the bat, the hyper-realism had everything to do with the writing & acting. No Nolan=no Jonah writing, no Bale, no Freeman, no Caine, no Ledger, no Wally Pfister, no nothing. You take all these elements away, and who knows how things might have turned out.

Second, way before Ledger passed, the hype around the Joker was the anticipation of seeing how he would be re-imagined within Nolan's world. Regardless of what you guys prefer to see, I doubt a 100% faithful comic translation would have garnered as much interest. It's the same thing that happened when people saw the B89 costume & Batmobile for the first time. It was a completely different look than what anyone had seen before. Add to that an actor who everyone had doubts about in the role, much like a bunch of you had concerning Ledger as the Joker, and that's where most of the intrigue came from.

Lastly, Without a doubt, Nolan has been more true to the comics than either Burton or Shumacher combined. Now granted, that has nothing to do with realism really, but on the same token, because of his different take on the characters, it allowed him to present old ideas in a fresh way while doing new things that would not have been possible otherwise. I don't subscribe to the notion that anything in the comics is automatically better because it came first. I'll take Nolan's Joker, Scarecrow & Batman origin over the comics anyday of the week, because it includes everything great about the source material and IMO, improved upon it. Which is the point, isn't it?

 

[storyteller]

My question becomes, is it even possible to achieve it? Do you think it's possible for a director to come along and be completely faithful to the look of the characters in the comics and still achieve the same quality film making?



It is possible but only to a certain extent. Graphic novels with self contained stories(one artist and one plot) can be translated. But thats not the case with comics like Batman. Batman and similar titles have had many writers, stories, artists,themes, etc. Finally the comic has a beginning but no ending. Its impossible to stay faithful to something thats always constantly changing. Sure people have their favorite stories and favorite whatever but everyone is different. Batman hardly has a definitive batsuit, batmobile, hair length, body build, favorite food.

As to the main topic question. Nolan has yet to show us his realism limits. We can guess we wont be seeming Kapow any time soon but that doesnt mean we wont be seeing exotic characters.

 

[christpunchers]

What movie were you watching? TDK had tons of "unrealistic" moments. Harvey roaming around with half his face missing yet still being able to talk and function without an ounce of pain. Joker's all knowing ability to predict each and every single move (okay this COULD happen but it's highly improbable). And what about the goofy CGI sonar vision we got near the end? I can believe in manipulating cell phones to track down people but the "see-through-the-wall-3D-Videogame-Ability" was just too much. I don't think they need to lighten up at all, in fact they should go the other way and quit making every finale centered around "fantastical" sequences like in TDK and BB.

 

[Punisher Rising]

Two-Face's scarring in TDK, though very disturbing, is pretty unrealistic with the way he's able to walk around in a populated city where a bunch of bacteria could easily cling to his burn and infect his scarring, and I always thought it was odd how someone could just walk into his room in the hospital, since burn wards have specially filtered air for burn victims and you can't just walk in there :/

 

[KalMart]

He also wouldn't be able to talk as comprehensibly as he did with half his face....as well as that cheek, missing.

 

[Punisher Rising]

The kind of scarring he had would pretty much require an immediate emergency skin graft, with that much burning and bits of his skull and muscle exposed. Don't even ask about how impossibly painful that would all be to endure :X

 

[Mister H.]

The last couple of posters hit the nail on the head. Nolan's Bat-flicks really aren't very "realistic" at all.

I think Nolan knew early on that he needed to convince the audience that all of his characters were very human and that its not out of the realm of possibility that any one of these characters could actually exist. Once he did that, he could bend the rules of reality all he wanted (and he did) because he had presented Gotham City as a real city, and its inhabitants as real people.

Bat-fans are very lucky to have a man with the vision and the integrity of Chris Nolan calling the shots. It may be a long time before we have a Batman this good again.

 

[Punisher Rising]

As I've said before, I think the serious tone can still be kept even if Nolan decides to loosen his stance on the hyper-realism and bring in characters such as Man-Bat (unlikely as that is to happen). There's just a fine line between fantasy and camp, and Schumacher made the misstep into the latter with his Batman films. Nolan is careful not to cross that thin line.