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

[Mr. Earle]

Well see, here's the thing. You cannot compare any of these guys to Bats because no comic book character has gone through as much stylistic and creative elasticity as he has since his inception. No one. If you think about it, it's pretty amazing how Batman has covered every end of the spectrum. There's too many interpretations of the character to logistically mix into one satisfactory amalgamation.

So yes, Marvel can make as many sequels as they want without having to 'reset' after a creative team leaves. But that's their liberty alone. Societal and historical shifts aside, the tone hasn't changed drastically from their original creation.

No so with Bats. He has very distinctive eras, and even there, he'll have subcategories under them. BTAS and AA (the game) are the two closest interpretations of Bats that I like, and these two styles clash in many ways, in spite of the latter borrowing heavily from the former. No director is ever going to escape the alienation of the fanbase. Maybe when Nolan is gone, and the next director fulfills your every hope and dream, you'll realize this. Rest assured you'll have plenty of people b****ing against your favorite depiction.

All true, but as far as the canon comics go, there is a standard depiction of Batman in today's comics. It has changed through time, but they only need to adapt the Batman of 2010, not Golden or Silver age Batman. The current canon Batman.

Its a story constantly evolving and adapting to the tastes of each era. 90ies were grimdark for example. This decade is... whatever it is. Why cant they follow the tone of the comics? They dont need to adapt Golden Age batman just because that's how he was written back then.

 

[Crook]

in much the same way, but this time the ultimate goal is not only saving gotham, but more importantly proving joker wrong. so no mater how much he may want to let joker fall or how much sense it would make he just can't do it because it would mean abandoning that goal (and subsequently destroying bruce's concept of batman)

Batman's ideals apply to everyone, yes or no? You don't pick and choose (if you have the option to) how you enact your own personal moral values. You either follow it or you don't.

eh, different strokes. just a couple of things i like to keep in the back of mind when i watch them. not really distracting from the narrative for me

You're not bothered by how meaningless it is, or how stupid it sounds?

All true, but as far as the canon comics go, there is a standard depiction of Batman in today's comics. It has changed through time, but they only need to adapt the Batman of 2010, not Golden or Silver age Batman. The current canon Batman.

Its a story constantly evolving and adapting to the tastes of each era. 90ies were grimdark for example. This decade is... whatever it is. Why cant they follow the tone of the comics? They dont need to adapt Golden Age batman just because that's how he was written back then.

Because it being canon or it being the current incarnation doesn't mean you have to like it. And for a director, it certainly doesn't mean he has to adapt it. You think fans of BTAS prefer the current comics over it? Just because it's over a decade old? I think not. People hold onto their favorites, regardless of time passage.

And btw, when it comes to adapting material, especially of a franchise, it's stupid to follow a strict guideline from just one era. If you're smart, you pick and choose the best elements from your favorite interpretations. Filter out the bad.

 

[lixdexia]

Batman's ideals apply to everyone, yes or no? You don't pick and choose (if you have the option to) how you enact your own personal moral values. You either follow it or you don't.

oh god no, image how chaotic that would be. and of course you pick and choose! we all do it on a daily basis, not even saints are saints.

You're not bothered by how meaningless it is, or how stupid it sounds?

no. it sounds equally stupid in the comics and i like it there too. i also pretend that stevenson's name is bullock for the same reason.

 

[returntovoid]

Though I can see your position on some of the cinematic decisions Nolan made, but overall, this just reminds me why fanboys should stay fanboys and not film makers.

I'm not a whiny fanboy that complains about the smallest of changes from the comics.

There is just too much of a hugging of the comics. Not saying that being faithful to the comics is bad, but this is an adaptation, not a duplication. If I wanted a duplication, I'd just read the comics in the first place and skip the movie.

1. I don't give a s**t about this insane 100% comic-accuracy.
2. I liked Batman Begins, Batman '89, Batman Returns and BTAS unlike TDK but even those ones also made changes from the comics, I still found them close enough to source material without being 100% accurate.

 

[Crook]

oh god no, image how chaotic that would be. and of course you pick and choose! we all do it on a daily basis, not even saints are saints.

"Do not kill" is pretty strict, especially with how Bruce defines it. You either follow it or you don't. If it's the latter, then it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise. It's not valid to apply rules to one event, and dismiss it in another.

no. it sounds equally stupid in the comics and i like it there too.

What you're suggesting isn't in the comics. It can't be anyway, his "white" doesn't run, so that negates any interpretive scenario where it would.

 

[returntovoid]

I think 9/11 has something to do with the urge to make things real.

I agree with that.

And yes I would like to go back to the Burton films

When I watched Batman Begins, I was really starting to enjoy/like Nolan's Batman but it all went downhill for me when I saw TDK and it made lose hope, it made me like to see the films go back to the tone of the Burton films.

 

[Anita18]

After being sorely disappointed with Avatar's screenplay and lack of characterization, I think I'll stick with TDK's realism. But "real" only in the sense that you feel like you've been dropped in on the movie, that you're watching people with real feelings and real motivations having pretty legitimate conversations on stuff that was happening to them, whether that "stuff" was actually realistic or not. I think that's the kind of realism that any sort of serious movie needs.

I also believe that TDK felt uber-realistic because it made the victimized feeling that much more palpable. It's a post-9/11 movie to the core. It meshed perfectly with the Joker's aims and made him feel that much more dangerous, so I have absolutely no qualms about sacrificing comic accuracy for that.

The third movie can probably let up on some of that, depending on what they're going for.

 

[3atman]

Why do people want 100% comic accuracy? People in the movies are artists, not copy machines. They can take a character, and as long as at it's core it's the same, then I'm cool with it. You can take liberties with a character, putting your own style on it is refreshing. how boring would it be if every character ever was always the same? I don't like to say that Nolan does things realistically, I like to say he does things "plausibly" if that's even a word. He explains why things are so that you aren't sitting there scratching your head going "so...he can fly around the world so fast that it makes it spin in reverse, but 20 seconds ago he could go save Lois? Is it because he wasn't mad enough? Did he always know he could do this and forgot? Did they already film that part then go oh s*** what do we do now?"

You know, with Nolan, you don't really have a lot of that. It almost gets annoying with Nolan because at times, he'll have the character describe themselves to make sure the audience doesn't miss something, which, insults some people's intelligence but when you're making a comic book movie (no offense, but there are a lot of younger audience member) sometimes you have to spell things out.

 

[jmc]

Its a story constantly evolving and adapting to the tastes of each era. 90ies were grim dark for example. This decade is... whatever it is. Why cant they follow the tone of the comics? They dont need to adapt Golden Age batman just because that's how he was written back then.

The Batman of the Golden Age and the Batman of today are all valid sources of character and story reference. You can't pick and choose and say one particular era of Batman is right. The Batman on film doesn't have to reflect the Batman of the comics that are being produced at the same time.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Because it being canon or it being the current incarnation doesn't mean you have to like it. And for a director, it certainly doesn't mean he has to adapt it. You think fans of BTAS prefer the current comics over it? Just because it's over a decade old? I think not. People hold onto their favorites, regardless of time passage.

And btw, when it comes to adapting material, especially of a franchise, it's stupid to follow a strict guideline from just one era. If you're smart, you pick and choose the best elements from your favorite interpretations. Filter out the bad.

The Batman of the Golden Age and the Batman of today are all valid sources of character and story reference. You can't pick and choose and say one particular era of Batman is right. The Batman on film doesn't have to reflect the Batman of the comics that are being produced at the same time.

No i dont mean that the current canon is supposed to be somehow superior. But its supposed to be analogous to the tastes of the contemporary fans like Silver Age Batman appeals to the demographic of that era.

BTAS and the current comics are pretty similar in my opinion. Especially the comics pre-Morrison. Dini's Detective run that run at the same time as Morrison's Batman run reminded me a lot of BTAS.
In any case, yes they should choose the best and filter out the worst, but in my opinion the characterisation of Batman has been pretty stable post-TDKR. Grimdark has been fluctuating depending on the writer and it's all one big story.

Nolan on the other hand establishes a special movieverse that forbids Robin and half the rogues gallery from appearing due to pretentious realism. BTAS was more balanced about interpreting the mythos.

In any case, the Nolanverse is too unbalanced. Its Silver and Golden age on the one side and the Nolanverse on the other. The current comics and BTAS are somewhere in the middle and that's where i'd like the movies to be. No Zebra Batman, but no "Heat 2: Batman" either.

 

[returntovoid]

BTAS was more balanced about interpreting the mythos.

IMO, BTAS took mainly the best aspects of the Golden Age, Bronze Age and to lesser extent Post-Crisis era's of Batman comics and created this outstanding animated take on Batman that was able to revolutionize one-dimensional/lame villains like Mr. Freeze for the better, introduced new characters that would become so popular that they made it into the comics like Harley Quinn, it got the characterization of Batman down to a tee as to really defining him, it's treatment of his villains/sidekicks/world was perfect and is arguably the second best cartoon to The Simpsons, in the history of animation. I really wish there would be a Batman movie like BTAS that is true to the exciting balanced blend of dark/fun in the comics and still acceptable to general audiences.​

 

[akfj]

Nolan on the other hand establishes a special movieverse that forbids Robin and half the rogues gallery from appearing due to pretentious realism.

Well, you only have one more movie where you won't see Robin and half the rogue's gallery, anything after that is fair game.

 

[Anita18]

Well, you only have one more movie where you won't see Robin and half the rogue's gallery, anything after that is fair game.

Exactly.

As for the original question, I think my answer would be yes. But ONLY after Nolan finishes his series. The movies are too good to be fooling around with. Plus I think that's how realistic Batman could possibly get while still feeling somewhat like a superhero movie. (I mean, they literally could have put Year One on screen...) At this point, the only direction to go is the other way.

 

[jmc]

No i dont mean that the current canon is supposed to be somehow superior. But its supposed to be analogous to the tastes of the contemporary fans like Silver Age Batman appeals to the demographic of that era.

Who says a film has to represent the current trends in the comics? Maybe screenwriters and director think it's rubbish. Why limit yourself to one particular period when you've got 70 years of story to sift through?

BTAS and the current comics are pretty similar in my opinion. Especially the comics pre-Morrison. Dini's Detective run that run at the same time as Morrison's Batman run reminded me a lot of BTAS.
In any case, yes they should choose the best and filter out the worst, but in my opinion the characterisation of Batman has been pretty stable post-TDKR. Grimdark has been fluctuating depending on the writer and it's all one big story.

You would like to see that Batman, which is fine, that's your preference. It doesn't mean the Batman that's come before is not a valid reference for film.

Nolan on the other hand establishes a special movieverse that forbids Robin and half the rogues gallery from appearing due to pretentious realism. BTAS was more balanced about interpreting the mythos.

It chooses to use certain aspects of the Batman mythology because that's all it can ever do. You know what BTAS series has as an advantage? The fact that's a TV series which is far more like a comic book in it's episodic nature than any movie an ever be.

In any case, the Nolanverse is too unbalanced. Its Silver and Golden age on the one side and the Nolanverse on the other. The current comics and BTAS are somewhere in the middle and that's where i'd like the movies to be. No Zebra Batman, but no ''Heat 2: Batman'' either.

But it's still all Batman, that's what's important, the core of the character is very much what Batman has always been. It's just not your Batman.

 

[weezerspider]

But it's still all Batman, that's what's important, the core of the character is very much what Batman has always been. It's just not your Batman.

That pretty much sums it up. TDK is Batman, just not some people's favorite portrayal of him.

 

[regwec]

No i dont mean that the current canon is supposed to be somehow superior. But its supposed to be analogous to the tastes of the contemporary fans like Silver Age Batman appeals to the demographic of that era.

That's a very interesting point, and probably true for the most part, I have to reflect that many of my favourite images and elements drawn from the Batman mythos are drawn from former eras; and I am in my mid 20s.

In fact I think that these movies, since they can only really offer a billion dollar snap shot of the entirety of Batman and his seventy-odd years of existence and development, should paint a picture somewhat broader than that seen in the most recent comics. After all, when most of us speak of "classic" Joker, "classic" Catwoman, or "classic" Riddler, we tend to be talking about incarnations from the 60s-80s.

After all, if you accept the cause of ruthless modernity and canon, then you would have to support the next Batmovie featuring the plot threads of the most recent comics. Catwoman having a daughter she cast off? The Riddler as a private detective? Batman's son as Robin?

I think a happy medium is essential.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Ok, let me elaborate. Canon Batman has a certain history. His parents die, he becomes batman, he takes in Dick , then Jason, then Tim, Bane breaks his back and all the Knightfall stuff happens, then an earthquake hits Gotham, then he finds out he has a son, then he dies and Dick and Damian become the new Dynamic Duo until he returns.

I'm sure i left out a lot of major events in his life but 1) I havent read everything on Batman and 2) that is not the point. The point is that until Morrison's run, Zebra Batman, Zur En Arrh, etc were not canon. There was a specific history and timeline. Morrison made everything canon by explaining some stuff as hallucinations, others as fond memories of a simpler and more fun past, and others as just weird cases in Batman's black casebook.

So, during the 50ies Batman was interpreted in a certain way, in the 60ies in another way, and so on. Back then they used to just print wacky stuff without much though. Now, we have established a certain history for him and we know what his life has been like. So all i am saying is that they should pick a certain directional style that's close to the tone of the comics and try to tell that story while taking liberties, drawing inspiration from other other sources and so on. BTAS wasnt canon but most of the time it followed it closely (if you exclude that they overlooked Jason) and drew a lot of inspiration from the comics. Then, many episodes of the JL animated series were almost direct adaptations of certain comic books. "For the man who has everything" and "Hereafter" for example. The important thing is that they got the tone right.

That said, the comics have had to give us a new story each month for the past 70+ years, so it would be impossible for the movies to adapt all of Batman's history. Not to mention that the general audience would roll their eyes at the number of Robins...

I'm just saying, pick a certain style that isnt extreme, like overly gothic or overly realistic. It would be great if the tone and style was the one from the comics, perhaps even toned down just a bit.
Then start telling the story following loosely on the comics or tell entirely new stories like TDK. My problem starts when a director picks an extreme approach. And that's not a problem in itself, because i welcone new approaches, but who wants to bet that DC will try to continue or copy his style once he is gone? He made a 1 billion dollar movie after all. Who needs Firefly, Manbat, Croc or Freeze?

In other words, i am not asking for the current events of the books, but the contemporary way we look at batman in the source material. And as far as i know, the batman comics arent like Heat or Public Enemies.

 

[IBRAH08]

Yes let's lighten up the realism quite a bit. HOwever, wait until Nolan is done (this next film) because otherwise it would just not make any sense with the continuity. Either way I just hope the next film is a financial success so we can be guaranteed to have many bat films in the future

 

[lixdexia]

"Do not kill" is pretty strict, especially with how Bruce defines it. You either follow it or you don't. If it's the latter, then it would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise. It's not valid to apply rules to one event, and dismiss it in another.

do not kill isn't the same as save murderers.

What you're suggesting isn't in the comics. It can't be anyway, his "white" doesn't run, so that negates any interpretive scenario where it would.

well no, make up over permawhite isn't the comics (except when it is, like the "joker as a cop" pic or the recent detective comics story where he dressed up as a magician) but either way, it's just something i think to enjoy the movie more. if i wanted to think that bruce wasn't actually born to thomas and martha but was found in a rocket from krypton what does it matter? you don't like it, that's cool, you don't have to.

 

[returntovoid]

I am just f***ing done with this thread, no point in stressing out my opinions with TDK fanboys.

And why was the "Batman movie *****ing" thread merged with this??? because now it's all about mentioning realism.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That pretty much sums it up. TDK is Batman, just not some people's favorite portrayal of him.

I understand that. I believe people don't like that villains often get more development in Batman films than Batman. I understand that people want Nolan to get more out there, including me honestly, but I love what he's done with the films. He took a film franchise others wouldn't touch and made it one of the biggest film franchises. As much as I want him to get more out there, I want to see him fulfill his vision of Batman (and that includes bringing back Joker).

However, I do believe he's laid down the groundwork for another director to come in and take over. Nolan's world still has a lot of room for more fantastical elements. I can easily see an opening for more of a fantastical world. That's why I think Nolan's missing an opportunity when he said Batman and Superman are in different universes. I believe that everyone here and the GA can accept Batman and Superman in the same film universe. It can also make it easier to add more fantastical elements imo too if they were.

 

[jmc]

There's no lost opportunity here, Bats and Sups will more than likely one day grace the screen together, in the grand scheme of things though I don't think the GA really gives a damn. But for now the characters work better in their own universes, in fact if you think about it from a neutral perspective DC's big guns are all characters that are basically different genres of film. Problem is some fans have trouble seeing the difference in the mediums, they're so conditioned to how comic are the notion of different universes for each character's film is unacceptable and not being 'true' to the source material. The ultimate question is what's best for the characters? The focus should first and foremost be about making the best damn movie you can, don't worry about sequels or filtering things towards a grand team up, just make the freakin' film.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The ultimate question is what's best for the characters? The focus should first and foremost be about making the best damn movie you can, don't worry about sequels or filtering things towards a grand team up, just make the freakin' film.

For starters, they could easily have all the characters in the same universe, like how SR mentioned Gotham. Then, if there really is gonna be a team up, i'm sure they could set it up in the different franchises like Marvel is doing. Its simple really. Have a bigger arc that builds up in each franchise and affects all the superheroes so that they'll team up and form the JL. I mean, team ups happen all the time in the comics, they could take notes from there on how to put all these characters together.

But for now the characters work better in their own universes, in fact if you think about it from a neutral perspective DC's big guns are all characters that are basically different genres of film.

Batman is different from the rest depending on the story (more superheroic or more gritty?) while all the others are pretty much in the same superhero genre.
In any case, it works in the comics, why wouldnt it work on film?

 

[jmc]

For starters, they could easily have all the characters in the same universe, like how SR mentioned Gotham. Then, if there really is gonna be a team up, i'm sure they could set it up in the different franchises like Marvel is doing. Its simple really. Have a bigger arc that builds up in each franchise and affects all the superheroes so that they'll team up and form the JL. I mean, team ups happen all the time in the comics, they could take notes from there on how to put all these characters together.

**** what Marvel are doing. What they're doing isn't a proven success. They've got a hit in Iron Man and a miss in Hulk, what if Cap Am and Thor crash and burn? Avengers suddenly becomes Iron Man 3?

Batman is different from the rest depending on the story (more superheroic or more gritty?) while all the others are pretty much in the same superhero genre.
In any case, it works in the comics, why wouldnt it work on film?

The comics are flawed in that respect but can get away with it due to the nature of the medium. Think about what's best for film though, you can either keep everything confined into one narrow area for each character, suffocating artistic license and potentially great ideas for the sake of a single continuity, or you can give each character their own canvas to paint in with no restrictions. In terms of genre, look at it this way, Batman - gritty crime drama, Superman - grand adventure, Wonder Woman - epic fantasy, Green Lantern - sci-fi opera, Flash, action comedy, there's 5 different type of films there each capable of bringing something totally unique to the screen, and that's why you keep the character separate from each other.

 

[regwec]

I have to admit that I find the prospect of what Marvel are trying to do with their movies to be depressingly homogeneous and rather tedious. Who, other than comicbook fans, really wants to see all of these costumed eccentrics in ensemble? I am the only person I know who actively reads current comicbooks. The nice thing about BB and TDK and even Superman Returns is that I could go to see them with friends who didn't care about the source material. I think that there is a risk of stigmatizing the whole genre by fusing all these properties together.