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

Actually, its people who love nolan who seem to get this mixed up.


Actually, I love Nolan. Like LOVE Nolan. But not like Love, Love him in that way.

Anyways. Having now shared that with all you. I think most Nolan Batman fans misinterpret the realism thing. From what I've read of Nolan I've come to the conclusion that his idea of realism is to make the film believable enough that his audience forgets they're sitting in a movie theater. He's not trying to give us a Batman that after watching the movie we argue could exist in real life (because even his Batman couldn't), but give us something where we're not thinking "this only happens in movies" while we're actually watching the movie.

So, in my opinion, Nolan isn't as handcuffed by the world he created as many of his own fans think in bringing other elements from the comics to the movies. There can be a sporty Batmobile, Robin and non-rubber Batsuit in Nolan's world that works.

In fact did Nolan every say that Robin couldn't exist in his world? The only reasoning I ever heard him give for not having Robin is that Robin is still in diapers at this stage of Batman's career.
 
Last edited:
He's taken the Joker, a character depicted with bleached skin green hair and red lips caused by a chemical accident, and made it work well in the film by focusing on the characterization and psychology of the character.

I think people misunderstand what Nolan means when he says whether a villain will work in the world he's established. The mechanics and look of the villain take a back seat to the pyschological link the villain has to Batman and the story. This is an absolute necessity since Nolan has shown that in some cases, the Joker for instance, he tinkers heavily with the physical depiction of a character. This is offset by the writing of the villain with its emphasis on characterization and psychology.

Since Nolan has taken one of the more non-realistic villains and successfully adapted him to his world the question isn't so much whether the world is too realistic or whether some villains won't work b/c they are too outlandish but rather whether the villain will excel, not just fit, on a psychological level and can be written in a manner that's integral to the story and Batman.
 
Actually, I love Nolan. Like LOVE Nolan. But not like Love, Love him in that way.

Anyways. Having now shared that with all you. I think most Nolan Batman fans misinterpret the realism thing. From what I've read of Nolan I've to conclusion that his idea of realism is to make the film believable enough that his audience forgets they're sitting in a movie theater. He's not trying to give us a Batman that after watching the movie we argue could exist in real life (because even his Batman couldn't), but give us something where we're not thinking "this only happens in movies" while we're actually watching the actual movie.

So, in my opinion, Nolan isn't as handcuffed by the world he created as many of his own fans think in bringing other elements from the comics to the movies. There can be a sporty Batmobile, Robin and non-rubber Batsuit in Nolan's world that works.

In fact did Nolan every say that Robin couldn't exist in his world? The only reasoning I ever heard him give for not having Robin is that Robin is still in diapers at this stage of Batman's career.

You're exactly right....even on the TDK behind the scenes footage, his production designer defines nolans vision as having the facade of reality to it...nolan is basically doing what donner did with superman: Verisimilitude
 
Easy (aka Cop Out) solution to the green suit thing:

Set the movie on St. Patrick's Day
 
He's taken the Joker, a character depicted with bleached skin green hair and red lips caused by a chemical accident, and made it work well in the film by focusing on the characterization and psychology of the character.

I think people misunderstand what Nolan means when he says whether a villain will work in the world he's established. The mechanics and look of the villain take a back seat to the pyschological link the villain has to Batman and the story. This is an absolute necessity since Nolan has shown that in some cases, the Joker for instance, he tinkers heavily with the physical depiction of a character. This is offset by the writing of the villain with its emphasis on characterization and psychology.

Since Nolan has taken one of the more non-realistic villains and successfully adapted him to his world the question isn't so much whether the world is too realistic or whether some villains won't work b/c they are too outlandish but rather whether the villain will excel, not just fit, on a psychological level and can be written in a manner that's integral to the story and Batman.

In this case a character like Mr. Freeze would work (psychologically speaking). Mr. Freeze is cold, cut off, isolated, and alone. Bruce has become, in Nolan's world, more isolated and alone. He could even become more cold and cut off because he has lost even more and only has Alfred who (perhaps) he would push away.
Mr. Freeze would be like a mirror of Bruce.

There was a special on the History Channel, and now on the Dark Knight Blue Ray from what I heard, called "The Psychology of Batman."
Its all about Bruce's/Batman's psychology and the psychology of all his enemies. Its practically a how might Nolan portray the character sort of thing.
And the thing that was stressed was that the characters that usually work best are some sort of mirror of Bruce or Batman.

Penguin was Bruce, if Bruce gave into the greed and indulged.

Catwoman was a thrill seeker, and I think they said, like Batman if he used being Batman and a way to have fun.

Riddler was a narcissist, like serial killers who have to prove they are smarter and better and send letters to the press and police.

Joker was, in Nolan's words, the logical response to Batman. The escalation of crime in response to Batman's presence. He is the opposite of Batman, he believes people are bad and that chaos is the norm.

Who else did they mention, I am not sure but I could think of more later if they did.

But using the psychology of a character, and using the character that works best in a particular story (like they have been doing) and no just what characters would be cool is a really great way to look at it.
 
If Nolan is truly going for realism...

He will have to come up with a pretty niffty, creative way for Bruce to fool the cops, who will now be hunting Batman, in Batman 3.

Isn't it obvious Bruce Wayne is Batman?

All Gordon has to do is a little research...

1) Who has the financial capabilities to be Batman?
2) out of those, who is young and buff and fit?
3) out of those, who has a personal stake in Gotham?
4) out of those, who knew Rachel Dawes? (if Gordon hadnt yet realized Batman had a thing for Rachel, he's a crappy listener)
5) check some cameras... Bruce Wayne was always in the right places at the right time... at Wayne Penthouse when Joker attacked... at the press conference where Harvey was going to announce Batman's arrest... etc.

Gordon/any cop figuring out who is Batman is a short list of suspects. How can Nolan go for realism and not have the police get REALLY close to pinning Bruce? So... I think Nolan will write Bruce a creative way out....
 
All Gordon has to do is a little research...

1) Who has the financial capabilities to be Batman?
It's Gotham City. Think of it like NYC. Do you know how many rich people there are in a metropolitan area?
2) out of those, who is young and buff and fit?
Young, based on what? Doesn't matter anyway, middle-aged white man is probably the largest population in a city.
3) out of those, who has a personal stake in Gotham?
Why would they need one? That's a mere assumption. And again..Gotham City. TONS of crime. Every other citizen has a "steak" in it.
4) out of those, who knew Rachel Dawes? (if Gordon hadnt yet realized Batman had a thing for Rachel, he's a crappy listener)
He could just as easily assume Bats wanted to save an innocent. Dent had a professional investment in the crime war. Rachel is completely a civilian in the middle of gunfire.
5) check some cameras... Bruce Wayne was always in the right places at the right time... at Wayne Penthouse when Joker attacked... at the press conference where Harvey was going to announce Batman's arrest... etc.
The conference is actually a good point. It's very strange for someone of Bruce's stature to be there.

Gordon/any cop figuring out who is Batman is a short list of suspects. How can Nolan go for realism and not have the police get REALLY close to pinning Bruce? So... I think Nolan will write Bruce a creative way out....
It's easy for us to assume this when we have complete knowledge of every aspect of the story. I simply don't think the pieces are that easy to connect. Especially with Bruce's public image being the cinematic equivalent of a Paris Hilton. :funny:
 
"Realistic" doesn't necessarily mean "real", so I'd say that Batman's secret ID is fairly safe. Although it would be nice if Jim finds out, but doesn't say anything.
 
Jesus. I thought this was already figured out?

Nolan's not going for "realism." He's going for heightened realism. Or realistic fantasy(both from his own mouth).

There's nothing realistic about the Nolan Bat-Movies. They're just MORE realistic than usual. Not complete realism.
 
Its pretty unrealistic that Gordon would figure out his identity based on those 5 points.
 
It's heightened realism, folks.
 
Last edited:
Wayne's public "playboy" persona and lifestyle successfully covers for points 1-3.

Harvey's relationship with Rachel is sufficient to cover for #4.

And somehow, with all of the problems Gordon has to deal with at the moment, I really doubt that he's going to be spending any serious time or energy trying to figure out who Batman is under the mask. He's not going to be reviewing footage from video cameras from all of these different places, in hopes that it will point to revealing Batman's identity.

Even if Gordon figured it out somehow, it wouldn't be in his best interests to say anything about it to anyone. Batman is his one, true ally, as well as his co-conspirator.
 
Yeah, Gordon would only be making an outward effort to find Batman, his heart's not in it because he knows he's not guilty.
 
The biggest clue is that Batman first appeared not so long after Bruce Wayne returned from his self-imposed exile.
 
If Nolan is truly going for realism...

He will have to come up with a pretty niffty, creative way for Bruce to fool the cops, who will now be hunting Batman, in Batman 3.

Isn't it obvious Bruce Wayne is Batman?

All Gordon has to do is a little research...

1) Who has the financial capabilities to be Batman?
2) out of those, who is young and buff and fit?
3) out of those, who has a personal stake in Gotham?
4) out of those, who knew Rachel Dawes? (if Gordon hadnt yet realized Batman had a thing for Rachel, he's a crappy listener)
5) check some cameras... Bruce Wayne was always in the right places at the right time... at Wayne Penthouse when Joker attacked... at the press conference where Harvey was going to announce Batman's arrest... etc.

Gordon/any cop figuring out who is Batman is a short list of suspects. How can Nolan go for realism and not have the police get REALLY close to pinning Bruce? So... I think Nolan will write Bruce a creative way out....
you are talking from the perspective of the audience, an entitiy that has seen things that no mere cop would have seen. Think of every scene gordon was in, and that is basically all he knows.
 
There are many different opinions about realism. Realism can be real life and realism can be realistic fantasy or whatever the movie is about.

In my opinion, if Nolan wants to make Batman 3 realistic, he has to make the movie realistic to extents. Any movie that is made to pure realism, it's just plain boring. Batman's gadgets aren't realistic, but they aren't out of this world.

Villains have a big influence on whether the movie is realistic, in Batman Begins the scarecrow was realistic to extents. Hallucinogens don't work quite as fast as they do in the movie, but the movie wouldn't be as good unless it was like that.

Things like this make Batman who he is today in movies.
 
Like others have said, it's a "grounded" fantasy more than anything else. That being said, there are still parameters. I can't see Man-Bat or Clayface showing up anytime soon. It's this heightened realism that makes the series work, it's what made the Joker so chilling, and also IMO what makes this Batman much more interesting himself. Keaton's Batman was a mythical cool, you never felt like he wouldn't prevail, or that he was even in real trouble, even though he was just starting out in B89 like he was in BB. This new version of Batman however, has you wondering what he'll screw up next...
 
Keaton's Batman was a mythical cool, you never felt like he wouldn't prevail, or that he was even in real trouble, even though he was just starting out in B89 like he was in BB. This new version of Batman however, has you wondering what he'll screw up next...
1) Wondering what BATMAN will screw up next is a good thing? :hehe:

2) I don't know anyone who honestly believes the superhero won't win out in the end. I think that's exaggeration. Yes, TDK's ending was more open-ended in this regard, but he still won the battle.
 
There have been so many interpretations of the term "realism" here, many of which have no rational basis, that its lost its meaning. Bottom line is Nolan created an engaging interpretation of the character that shouldn't be lightened at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
I don't know why they use the word "realism" when they should use the words "Talent"(writing/acting). I mean it's so well written that no one says "come on thats ridiculous" to the fact that the Joker rigged the only 2 ferries in Gotham City with bombs completely undetected and got the entire city on those ferries. there are plenty of other unrealistic things in BB and TDK. But it is good writing and acting that makes stuff like that work.

like stated above.
From what I've read of Nolan I've come to the conclusion that his idea of realism is to make the film believable enough that his audience forgets they're sitting in a movie theater. He's not trying to give us a Batman that after watching the movie we argue could exist in real life (because even his Batman couldn't), but give us something where we're not thinking "this only happens in movies" while we're actually watching the movie.
I completely agree with that.
 
I don't know why they use the word "realism" when they should use the words "Talent"(writing/acting). I mean it's so well written that no one says "come on thats ridiculous" to the fact that the Joker rigged the only 2 ferries in Gotham City with bombs completely undetected and got the entire city on those ferries. there are plenty of other unrealistic things in BB and TDK. But it is good writing and acting that makes stuff like that work.

like stated above.
I completely agree with that.
Amen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"