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

[weezerspider]

Exactly!

Those comics you are mentioning are not exactly comics but they are graphic novels but even if some of them were originally released as individual issues and later TPB, it can't be denied that they paved way for the graphic novel format in terms of style/tone. So, they are either un-conventional comics or not in the mainstream continuity.

TDK isn't a comic. Its a movie.

 

[weezerspider]

I don't think anyone here is saying there can't be a great fantasy Batman movie. I know I'm not. That said, I'm not going to hate TDK just because its grounded in a more realistic world, yet you people seem to hate TDK simply because its grounded in a more realistic world. I've yet to here a valid argument. I wouldn't hate fantasy Batman movie simply because it's fantasy, so why do you hate TDK simply because it's gritty? The Killing Joke, TLH, Year One, Dark Victory are all very Nolanesque. The gritty reality version of Batman is simply another take on the character

 

[Travesty]

I don't think anyone here is saying there can't be a great fantasy Batman movie. I know I'm not. That said, I'm not going to hate TDK just because its grounded in a more realistic world, yet you people seem to hate TDK simply because its grounded in a more realistic world. I've yet to here a valid argument. I wouldn't hate fantasy Batman movie simply because it's fantasy, so why do you hate TDK simply because it's gritty? The Killing Joke, TLH, Year One, Dark Victory are all very Nolanesque. The gritty reality version of Batman is simply another take on the character

And this is what I wrote on the 1st page:

I hated the pacing, the lighting, the messy story line that doesn't really make sense, how they excluded a lot of iconic Batman scenes, etc. I have a LOT of issues with TDK, other then how "realistic" it felt.

 

[Laderlappen]

I think The Dark Knight is not realistic just like all normal films but as a comic book film, it's too realistic.

I think Batman Begins was not realistic for a film because it was a comic book film.

In other words they are not realistic. Its just that comicbook movies are really unrealistic.

 

[weezerspider]

And this is what I wrote on the 1st page:

Messy Story-line? First people say AVATAR has a Good story, now people are saying TDK has a BAD one?

 

[Travesty]

Messy Story-line? First people say AVATAR has a Good story, now people are saying TDK has a BAD one?

Oh, well thanks for putting words in my mouth about Avatar.

And yes, I think Joker's plot throughout the entire movie wasn't believable, and it was a mess. But, why should I try to debate with someone, who's only line of defense, is to put words/thoughts in my mouth?

 

[jmc]

I'm aware of that, but how about an interpretation that doesnt discard 90% of the mythos because it grants it unrealistic or cheesy?

Its one thing to refrain from adapting the Mandarin because he is cheesy, and another what Nolan is doing.

90%? Please. I said it before, the comics are a guide, not gospel. They are a reference, they're not there to be copied exactly, it's an adaptation. So we don't get someone like Clay Face appearing, big freakin' whoop. The core of the Nolan films are very much true to the character, so what if it takes away some fantastical elements? It's still clearly Batman, Nolan is just picking what works best for his interpretation, and in this case he's sticking to the more grounded characters to work with. No-ones forcing you to watch the film. You don't like it? Well turn it off and wait until someone makes a Batman film that you like.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

************

 

[The Joker]

90%? Please. I said it before, the comics are a guide, not gospel. They are a reference, they're not there to be copied exactly, it's an adaptation.

Exactly. Look at the much loved Mask of the Phantasm. The whole movie revolves around a character that doesn't even exist in the comics: Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm.

And it saddled The Joker with a backstory where he was a gangster for Sal Valestra, and he murdered Andrea's father.

None of this is in the comics. But who cares? It makes for great viewing.

 

[Brother Jack]

90%? Please. I said it before, the comics are a guide, not gospel. They are a reference, they're not there to be copied exactly, it's an adaptation. So we don't get someone like Clay Face appearing, big freakin' whoop. The core of the Nolan films are very much true to the character, so what if it takes away some fantastical elements? It's still clearly Batman, Nolan is just picking what works best for his interpretation, and in this case he's sticking to the more grounded characters to work with. No-ones forcing you to watch the film. You don't like it? Well turn it off and wait until someone makes a Batman film that you like.

[YT]P3ALwKeSEYs[/YT]

 

[weezerspider]

Oh, well thanks for putting words in my mouth about Avatar.

And yes, I think Joker's plot throughout the entire movie wasn't believable, and it was a mess. But, why should I try to debate with someone, who's only line of defense, is to put words/thoughts in my mouth?

Did you just say "wasn't believable"? You are fighting for less believable Batman movies. You are fighting for fantasy Batman movies. I'm pretty sure everything in TDK is more believable then what some of you guys want in a Batman movie, so there goes that excuse.
You say the plot was a mess, how? It was pretty great. It took Gotham's two heroes and should a parallel of them. The movie revolves around the parallel of Batman and DA Harvey Dent. Then in the climax, Rachel's death throws the parallel off. It shows Batman's heroism because he's able to take this great tragedy and use it for good, while the other hero of Gotham, Dent, goes insane from this tragedy and self destructs, trying to take Gotham down with him. The parallel alone is a great plot point that proves Nolan gets it. He gets Batman and Batman's heroism. Batman proves he's more of a hero than Dent. Add in the sacrifice Batman takes to keep Gotham's hope alive by taking Dent's murders on him, and Nolan has easily produced the most heroic Batman film to date.

BTW, I wasn't putting words in your mouth about AVATAR, I was just expressing how ridiculous these forums can get.

 

[jmc]

Exactly. Look at the much loved Mask of the Phantasm. The whole movie revolves around a character that doesn't even exist in the comics: Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm.

And it saddled The Joker with a backstory where he was a gangster for Sal Valestra, and he murdered Andrea's father.

None of this is in the comics. But who cares? It makes for great viewing.

Absolutely. There seems to be this ridiculous notion that when a director takes liberties he/she is not being respectful to the source material, these same people conveniently forget that some of the great Batman stories have been when the artists/writers took great liberties. A director is fully within their right to make alteration to suit their story, in fact sometimes those changes can be improvements, just because it's a different medium doesn't mean a concept can't be improved upon.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree with you about taking dramatic liberties with the characters.

I loathed Burton for making the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill, Batman using machine guns to kill his opponents and making Harvey Dent black.

What was so bad about that? His race wasn't the most important detail and Billy Dee wasn't bad as Dent. I believe it was worse what Schumacher did by making him white again, ruining some of the continuity of the films.

 

[weezerspider]

Absolutely. There seems to be this ridiculous notion that when I director takes liberties he/she is not being respectful to the source material, these same people conveniently forget that some of the great Batman stories have been when the artists/writers took great liberties. A is director fully within their right to make alteration to suit their story, in fact sometimes those changes can be improvements, just because it's a different medium doesn't mean a concept can't be improved upon.

Yah I agree with you guys. MOTP, TDK, and BB are all great examples of that. The Comics are a guideline, but there is no where that says they have to be followed 100%. I like how, perhaps because Kick-Ass doesn't have 50+ years of history, people are willing to say "I like how they did this in the movie better". Maybe a lot of them read Volume 1 after the movie, maybe its because his history isn't as vast as Batman's, or maybe the stories aren't old enough for people to treat as their personal Holy Grail. Either way, it would be nice if people realized that you can make a great film about a comic book character, without making it exactly like the comic.

 

[Motown Marvel]

my problem is how inconsistent they are with the realism. sometimes they attempt to pass off completely ridiculous things realistically and its just stupid, and other times we're deprived of some more fantastic elements due to the "realism".

 

[nogap87]

Absolutely. There seems to be this ridiculous notion that when I director takes liberties he/she is not being respectful to the source material, these same people conveniently forget that some of the great Batman stories have been when the artists/writers took great liberties. A is director fully within their right to make alteration to suit their story, in fact sometimes those changes can be improvements, just because it's a different medium doesn't mean a concept can't be improved upon.

I have no problem if liberties are taken if they add to the story. Most of the time I embrace them. Harley Quinn from BTAS was a great addition to the Batman mythology, The cerebro room from the X-Men movies was inspired, and Stark's house from Iron Man is the coolest house seen in any superhero movie.

That said, the liberties taken in BB and TDK aren't anything special. IMO of course.

 

[Travesty]

You want a believable villain scheme in a comic book movie?



Excuse me, I think I'll go pop one of the other Batman flicks on. I can't decide between the one with the marching army of rocket toting penguins, or the one where the Joker announces on TV that he'll be at the 200th anniversary parade at midnight and no Cops show up to arrest him, or maybe I'll watch the one with the ninjas in the Himalayan mountains conjuring up plots to balance justice with fear gas and microwave emitter machines, or perhaps I'll watch the one with the brain draining device on everyone's TV, or best yet, the one with the plan to freeze the world so plants can grow on it.

The believability here is just coming out the yin yang with the Batman movies.

I think Motown expressed my same thoughts/ideas well enough. But yes, when a movie is supposed to be grounded, or is supposed to be "serious", then yes, some consistency would be nice. And even those examples you just made, at least they were more consistent then The Jokers plan in TDK. Key word is "consistency", which is why I think it's "messy".

my problem is how inconsistent they are with the realism. sometimes they attempt to pass of completely ridiculous things realistically and its just stupid, and other times we're deprived of some more fantastic elements due to the "realism".

 

[El Payaso]

I agree with you about taking dramatic liberties with the characters.

I loathed Burton for making the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill, Batman using machine guns to kill his opponents and making Harvey Dent black.

But every director has made such changes. Ducard being Ra's, Harvey Dent being blonde and sharing the same love interest with Bruce Wayne (instead of having a wife) and not scarred by Maroni at the trial.

 

[Mr. Earle]

90%? Please. I said it before, the comics are a guide, not gospel. They are a reference, they're not there to be copied exactly, it's an adaptation. So we don't get someone like Clay Face appearing, big freakin' whoop. The core of the Nolan films are very much true to the character, so what if it takes away some fantastical elements? It's still clearly Batman, Nolan is just picking what works best for his interpretation, and in this case he's sticking to the more grounded characters to work with. No-ones forcing you to watch the film. You don't like it? Well turn it off and wait until someone makes a Batman film that you like.

Yes 90%. One of the major characters, Robin, plus 90% of the villains cant appear in the nolanverse.

But i shouldnt voice my opinion, i should wait for when they make a movie that i like. Last time i checked, they were listening to our whining, like improving the fight scenes, so excuse me if i dont shut up.

Exactly. Look at the much loved Mask of the Phantasm. The whole movie revolves around a character that doesn't even exist in the comics: Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm.

And it saddled The Joker with a backstory where he was a gangster for Sal Valestra, and he murdered Andrea's father.

None of this is in the comics. But who cares? It makes for great viewing.

Absolutely. There seems to be this ridiculous notion that when a director takes liberties he/she is not being respectful to the source material, these same people conveniently forget that some of the great Batman stories have been when the artists/writers took great liberties. A director is fully within their right to make alteration to suit their story, in fact sometimes those changes can be improvements, just because it's a different medium doesn't mean a concept can't be improved upon.

Off topic. Nobody is complaining about the liberties Nolan has taken. Hell, i've defended the inclusion of Rachel numerous times in the past.
I'm complaining that Nolan is throwing out a lot of material because it doesnt fit his pretentious realistic vision.

I get why Nolan is doing what he is doing, i get why people like it, but i dont get why you guys dont understand me and my camp. Would you be satisfied with a watered down ____ (name of superhero) movie?

my problem is how inconsistent they are with the realism. sometimes they attempt to pass off completely ridiculous things realistically and its just stupid, and other times we're deprived of some more fantastic elements due to the "realism".

And what does this have to do with TDK sequel spoilers?

Nothing, from the looks of it. Because you can't complain about something that hasn't happened yet.

Although I wouldn't put it past you people.

Its the thousandth time that you complain about other people complaining. You dont have to participate if you dont want to, there are other threads for you.

 

[Crook]

Yes 90%. One of the major characters, Robin, plus 90% of the villains cant appear in the nolanverse.

Even if Nolan's take were available to them, he couldn't possibly cover every one anyway. So does it matter in the end? These aren't the comics where they have limitless time. This series has a finish line, and Nolan will likely be done after the third. There's only so much ground you can cover before your run is over, and I wouldn't want that (vision) to continue without the creative person anyhow.

It's really beyond a moot point. I wouldn't want Nolan adapting material he doesn't want to, and even if he did, he wouldn't please every fan of every villain.

 

[The Joker]

I get why Nolan is doing what he is doing, i get why people like it, but i dont get why you guys dont understand me and my camp.

I understand what people like you, and say Travesty to be saying. And you're consistent in your points, too. Other people, mainly returntovoid (no offense, dude) make criticisms that either make no sense, or are a contradiction, or a double standard.

Would you be satisfied with a watered down ____ (name of superhero) movie?

Define watered down. For example, one could argue Ra's Al Ghul was watered down. He was stripped of his whole immortality/Lazarus pit schtick, there was no Talia angle, and he was made a crusader of justice instead of the megalomaniacal terrorist who wants to preserve the ecological balance of the planet.

Scarecrow and Falcone, too, were watered down. Falcone of the comics was slick, stylish crime boss, with a powerful crime family under his wing, who dined with the rich and fabulous, and was so powerful and untouchable that it took Two Face putting two bullets in his head to put a stop to him. Falcone in Begins was a cheap sleazy hood in a suit who got shoved into Arkham.

Scarecrow was downgraded to being Ra's' lackey, who was robbed of his traditional Scarecrow costume, and was basically a guy in a suit with a potato sack on his head.

But don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed all these characters, particularly Neeson, who's fab performance was a highlight of Begins, and I wish he'd been in it more. He chewed the scenery of every scene he was in.

Anyway, my point is it depends on what you consider watered down, IMO. It's all subjective.

 

[Travesty]

Even if Nolan's take were available to them, he couldn't possibly cover every one anyway. So does it matter in the end? These aren't the comics where they have limitless time. This series has a finish line, and Nolan will likely be done after the third. There's only so much ground you can cover before your run is over, and I wouldn't want that (vision) to continue without the creative person anyhow.

It's really beyond a moot point. I wouldn't want Nolan adapting material he doesn't want to, and even if he did, he wouldn't please every fan of every villain.

I agree with this, but the strange thing about Nolan, is I LOVED Begins, but highly despise TDK. I know Nolan can make another good Bat-flick, and I understand peoples gripes about Begins, but there should be some kind of middle ground. Those two movies are so different then each other, yet, still in the same universe. It's strange to me, but I am hopeful that the next Bat-movie will be good, cause of my love for Begins, but only time will tell. I'm not expecting any TDK-lover to agree with my stance, but hell, it's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I understand what people like you, and say Travesty to be saying. And you're consistent in your points, too. Other people, mainly returntovoid (no offense, dude) make criticisms that either make no sense, or are a contradiction, or a double standard.



Define watered down. For example, one could argue Ra's Al Ghul was watered down. He was stripped of his whole immortality/Lazarus pit schtick, there was no Talia angle, and he was made a crusader of justice instead of the megalomaniacal terrorist who wants to preserve the ecological balance of the planet.

Scarecrow and Falcone, too, were watered down. Falcone of the comics was slick, stylish crime boss, with a powerful crime family under his wing, who dined with the rich and fabulous, and was so powerful and untouchable that it took Two Face putting two bullets in his head to put a stop to him. Falcone in Begins was a cheap sleazy hood in a suit who got shoved into Arkham.

Scarecrow was downgraded to being Ra's' lackey, who was robbed of his traditional Scarecrow costume, and was basically a guy in a suit with a potato sack on his head.

But don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed all these characters, particularly Neeson, who's fab performance was a highlight of Begins, and I wish he'd been in it more. He chewed the scenery of every scene he was in.

Anyway, my point is it depends on what you consider watered down, IMO. It's all subjective.

Watered down as in "realismed". Would you enjoy a realismed LOTR?

Even if Nolan's take were available to them, he couldn't possibly cover every one anyway. So does it matter in the end? These aren't the comics where they have limitless time. This series has a finish line, and Nolan will likely be done after the third. There's only so much ground you can cover before your run is over, and I wouldn't want that (vision) to continue without the creative person anyhow.

It's really beyond a moot point. I wouldn't want Nolan adapting material he doesn't want to, and even if he did, he wouldn't please every fan of every villain.

That's beside the point.

Btw, why isnt anyone discussing the directional style? Did i just surpass Nolan almighty?

Spoiler

You said:
Didnt you mean that?I dont know if my suggestions would make the film more successful. Who cares anyway? I want a better film for me.
I dont know all the details about cinematography so i am probably a bad judge. Ironman wasnt spectacular, but IM2 looks like its going to be. I dont want Bay-esque direction, i dont want glitzy colours and sets, but i do want something better than TDK.

Example:
TDK: Batman standing on the Sears Towers. We cant see anything else because ST is so damn tall. Batman is standing still in his ironman-esque suit.

My proposal inspired by BTAS and comics scenes: Batman is standing on a more interesting building, which is barely taller than the others around it. He is wearing the comics batsuit (anything but the TDK atrocity). He is crouching at the edge staring at the abyss below, with his cape billowing and covering most of him. His white eyes shine in the darkness. The shot starts with us looking up to him and slowly the camera rises to his level while it also rotates giving us a good view of GOTHAM (not Chicago) from above. The camera sets over his back and its like we re standing behind him, seeing what he sees, hearing what he hears. He then jumps forward and opens his glider, gliding between skyscrapers... etc....

With my zero skills here's what i managed after a thousand hours in MS Paint:

Now compare this to the Sears Towers scene.

 

[Crook]

Define watered down. For example, one could argue Ra's Al Ghul was watered down. He was stripped of his whole immortality/Lazarus pit schtick, there was no Talia angle, and he was made a crusader of justice instead of the megalomaniacal terrorist who wants to preserve the ecological balance of the planet.

Scarecrow and Falcone, too, were watered down. Falcone of the comics was slick, stylish crime boss, with a powerful crime family under his wing, who dined with the rich and fabulous, and was so powerful and untouchable that it took Two Face putting two bullets in his head to put a stop to him. Falcone in Begins was a cheap sleazy hood in a suit who got shoved into Arkham.

Scarecrow was downgraded to being Ra's' lackey, who was robbed of his traditional Scarecrow costume, and was basically a guy in a suit with a potato sack on his head.

But don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed all these characters, particularly Neeson, who's fab performance was a highlight of Begins, and I wish he'd been in it more. He chewed the scenery of every scene he was in.

Anyway, my point is it depends on what you consider watered down, IMO. It's all subjective.

Watering-down the material almost always happens when you have a multitude of subplots and characters in one movie. For example, I thought BB was a fantastic Batman movie with watered-down villains and supporting cast. On the flipside, I thought TDK was a wonderful ensemble flick with a memorable villain, but a watered-down Batman. I still liked both. But it would be nice to get a better balance.

 

[lixdexia]

Yes 90%. One of the major characters, Robin, plus 90% of the villains cant appear in the nolanverse.

But i shouldnt voice my opinion, i should wait for when they make a movie that i like. Last time i checked, they were listening to our whining, like improving the fight scenes, so excuse me if i dont shut up.

i don't think the problem people have with you is that you voice your opinion, it's that you often don't seem to have a purpose behind it other than bellyaching and naysaying. bmn'ging about everything is NOT what the producers of these movies are looking for when they come online looking for critiques of the movies.

Off topic. Nobody is complaining about the liberties Nolan has taken. Hell, i've defended the inclusion of Rachel numerous times in the past.
I'm complaining that Nolan is throwing out a lot of material because it doesnt fit his pretentious realistic vision.

these movies are adaptations, and one's with limited space for inclusion of material at that. not everything from the comics is going to make the cut nor should it. if you want a story that has all the things you seem to miss from the comics your only option is basically...the comics.

I get why Nolan is doing what he is doing, i get why people like it, but i dont get why you guys dont understand me and my camp. Would you be satisfied with a watered down ____ (name of superhero) movie?

by your standard of watered down? yes. the lack of the savage land doesn't ruin the first x-men movie for me at all. likewise the lack of mongul, metallo, bizarro, etc. in the first 2 superman movies. the list of things that aren't the movies that i don't mind is gigantic.

Its the thousandth time that you complain about other people complaining. You dont have to participate if you dont want to, there are other threads for you.

the same could be said of you in other threads, thank you for finally finding the one where your nolan bashing belongs. please endeavor to keep it here.