I guess that is the main thesis to why us fans of the original material find so much wrong with most comic book films. We aren't included in the larger demographic of the movies that come out. Spider-man wasn't made for fans of the comic, it was made for the general public. Same with the Batman films and any other comic book movie. But then again I feel that movies like Batman 89' and Superman: The Movie are exceptions to this.
I'm fine with it for a movie, plus it works for the plot of the film. Without Batman 89' the movie franchise that people worship under Nolan wouldn't even exist, you would be stuck with Adam West. Which for the sake of argument, I still find entertaining.
...Wow, originally I meant in terms of realism being lightened, it was to allow more opportunities for villains to enter with little changes. For example, Mr. Freeze couldn't exist in this world yet a microwave emitter that can evaporate the city's water supply and doesn't affect people could? Riddler can't wear a forest green blazer and a question mark lapel pin because the green would be too "supervillain"? [Insert villain's name her] should be an assasin? People trying to overexplain the Gothamite criminals was where I was aiming at in terms of being a little too "realistic"... However, I guess this debate is interesting. Proceed.
...Wow, originally I meant in terms of realism being lightened, it was to allow more opportunities for villains to enter with little changes. For example, Mr. Freeze couldn't exist in this world yet a microwave emitter that can evaporate the city's water supply and doesn't affect people could? Riddler can't wear a forest green blazer and a question mark lapel pin because the green would be too "supervillain"? [Insert villain's name her] should be an assasin? People trying to overexplain the Gothamite criminals was where I was aiming at in terms of being a little too "realistic"... However, I guess this debate is interesting. Proceed.
As far as the Riddler goes,
It is realistic for him to give clues to the cops or Batman about his crimes.
He is like one of those killers who sends notes to the cops taunting them. Trying to prove they are smarter, they don't want to get caught but still want the recognition. I saw a thing about the Riddler and criminals like that,
they called the Riddler a narcissistic personality.
As far as his costume, its realistic to think that he would go around wearing a disguise to hide his identity but still want to get noticed.
There was a serial killer who would wear a sort of costume, according to eye witnesses. So I think it would be realistic.
He could wear a mutated green blazer, and perhaps some sort of mask that covers his eyes, or maybe sun glasses or something. On his tie or jacket there could be a question mark.
I don't see how his costume is unrealistic. The unreal one is the original from the comics, the spandex leotard covered in question marks.
The reason they switched to a suit is because the actor from the actor didn't want to wear it.
I think what the movies are doing though his pretty good so far. Joker is a realistic response to Batman. Bruce becoming Batman is somewhat unreal, but the reason for dressing like that is so he can be more than a man, to become a myth or a symbol.
Two-Face's costume, the suit he was wearing when he got scarred on one side, being all burnt on one side, is very realistic.
(although I did miss his mutliple personality angle.
I think what the movies are doing now is taking the realistic characters and altering them slightly, taking out the unreal stuff like a Lazarus Pit and replacing them with more realistic counterparts like the mantel of Ras al Ghul is something passed down to make it look like he has lived forever.
Some characters though wouldn't fit because if you alter them too much they aren't the same anymore.
Calyface is a good example because without him being made of shape changing clay you don't have Clayface.
(what they could do however is what they did in between Begins and Dark Knight. Take the unreal characters like Killer Croc and put them in an cartoon movie.
Or if they don't want that again, a comic that takes place between Dark Knight and the thrid film.)
I think it's odd that alot of people only want the realism reduced in order to introduce more villains that probably won't work in Nolan's world otherwise. But who's to say they'd work in any film? Granted, some of them are pretty interesting, but in the grand scheme of things, how many of them can really carry a live action film and be comparable to what we got in TDK? I love Mr. Freeze, behind Two-Face and Joker he's my guy, but I don't think he translates well to movies, no matter what tone they're using, and I'm not saying that based on B&R. Somethings work well from comics or cartoons but not everything and I think a lot of Batman's villains don't work outside of that context.
Everyone forgets that not only is the Joker Batman's greatest foe, he's the greatest villain in all of comics, in most people's estimation. Wipe away Heath's death, and the film would've still been the biggest Batman since the last time they used Joker in B89. When that came out, it was huge for its time as well. Whenever they reboot the series and introduce him again, it'll be huge again, Joker's every bit as popular as Batman himself, their dynamic is always entertaining and interesting, and with Nolan's take, it was something different while at the same time being faithful to the comics in ways B89 never accomplished. None of these other villains, no matter who they use, will have that same impact, it just won't happen. I think the focus needs to stay how it is, and whoever the badguys (or girl) happen to be, let's put the attention back on Batman himself and allow the story to continue
I think that Freeze could work, as long as the Batman film had the level of realism that say something like the Spider-Man films had. Where comic book things happened but still had realism. Someone like Christopher Lloyd playing him very seriously, wearing Bruce Timm's version of the suit.
but I don't want to see the Nolan films that way, maybe when they reboot the franchise whenever they do it they can introduce that comic stuff. Where Mr. Freeze was in an accident and has to wear a robot suit. He, and Clayface, could work but not for Nolan's I think.
(but all that is just my opnion)
But I think the way they are going works.
I can even see they introducing Penguin, Riddler, and Catwoman, all in movie 3.
Penguin as the newest Crime Lord (taking over the vacancies left during Dark Knight)
^and that would show the escalation of the new Mob Bosses being more monstrous nature (not looks) like the Joker than the previous crime bosses.
Riddler could be the newest threat to the city (not as chaotic as the Joker but still dangerous) Not working with or for Penguin.
Catwoman could be a thief who as first is Batman's enemy, then a sort of love interest even though they are enemies, and then maybe help him in the end. (sort of setting up, along with Alfred, Fox, Gordon, and maybe someone else, the sort of adopted Bat-Family Bruce ends up setting up around him. Like in the comics only without having to introduce Robin or Batgirl or Nightwing.)
She wouldn't be working with or for Riddler or Penguin either. But all three could end up having scenes together.
I am just saying I think Nolan could introduce them realistically in the third film and still have it all work and flow and serve the story without seeming like they just tossed it all in there.
Have you frogoten Basil Karlo when he was a serial Killer or he can wear duguies or Batman:Nine Lives Clayface that is a gang leader or use the Joker novel by Brian Azzerello
The thing I hate about "realism" is that everyone thinks a liberty for one character means a liberty for the entire movie. People say if you want a fantasy depiction of Batman watch the last series of movies. But I dont want a fantasy depiction of Batman I want a fantasy depiction of Batman. The character should deal within the limitations of reality but his rogues gallery can deal outside those limitations in surreality. BY alienating a number of good, very dramatic villains who are not realistic, I feel he has limited what stories he can do. Many are worried about Batman 3 not living up to TDK, which was a powerhouse of a film. I think that a possible way to out-do Ledger's Joker is to deal with a surreal character.
Nolan's Batfilms are grounded in a real world, i.e. no Superheroes like Superman exist. Therefore the correct term to describe them should be "plausible" not necessarily realistic. There's a difference between the two.
A secret ninja organization that has been manipulating civilization for thousands of years, a man who dresses like a clown and has near omnipotence when it comes to crime, and a guy walking around with half his face blown off and not dying from infection are hardly realistic.
I think people take the Realism thing a little to far and not just Nolan Joker and the league of Shadows aren't realistic nor is Batmans tech, If Nolan wants some one in the movie he will make them fit, but the peoples Ideas on how to make villians realistic are very funny.
This is one of the many old and boring arguments that TDK has just deemed as useless. amachronistic and narrow-minded as it has been at its core all along. Any complaints that Nolan´s vision of Batman lacks "spectacle" or "magic" or "imagination" or whatever crap some people come up with that comes from a gross misconstrunction of what Nolan meant with realism - which never meant, "I´m gonna turn Batman into docudrama", seem the more pale and off the mark in front of the cultural and popular phenomen that TDK has become. It´s like seeing that ending of Family Guy where Pete Griffin comes up with the most bizarre reasoning to put down The Godfather. Deep down, the whole source of the problem doesn´t go much beyond missing cathedrals with gargoyles and fins on the batmobile, which is all fine, but still, the big complain before Nolan came around is the franchis needed to be renewed and revitalized, and no one can deny it has been just that.
This is one of the many old and boring arguments that TDK has just deemed as useless. amachronistic and narrow-minded as it has been at its core all along. Any complaints that Nolan´s vision of Batman lacks "spectacle" or "magic" or "imagination" or whatever crap some people come up with that comes from a gross misconstrunction of what Nolan meant with realism - which never meant, "I´m gonna turn Batman into docudrama", seem the more pale and off the mark in front of the cultural and popular phenomen that TDK has become. It´s like seeing that ending of Family Guy where Pete Griffin comes up with the most bizarre reasoning to put down The Godfather. Deep down, the whole source of the problem doesn´t go much beyond missing cathedrals with gargoyles and fins on the batmobile, which is all fine, but still, the big complain before Nolan came around is the franchis needed to be renewed and revitalized, and no one can deny it has been just that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
