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

[Bad Superman]

I think realism should be taken down a notch. IMO, it expands the Batman universe and opens up alot of possibilities for both villians and maybe visual or "audio" cameos.

 

[KalMart]

As much as I enjoy the new series, the emphasis on realism is annoying to me because (IMHO) it's too restrictive and takes away from Batman's world a bit for me. I'd love to see Man-Bat realized onscreen along with a proper portrayal of Freeze, but with Nolan focusing on making everything realistic, this won't ever happen and I feel the new films are painted in a corner in this sense. The new films can go more into fantasy territory without going overboard and becoming campy, and the more fantastical character just need to be treated with seriousness and respect, something Schumacher didn't have for the villains in his films. As I've said before, I'm all for lightening on the realism while keeping the tone and story serious. By keeping it too real, the series becomes too limited, one-note and boring for my liking. What makes Batman's rogues gallery great in my eyes is how diverse and wide it is, with so many different types of villains, not just basic criminals.

That's what's nice about having (hopefully) only 2 or three movies, in that this version doesn't have to be THE all-inclusive or definitive version. Sure, you can't really fit a Killer Croc into these movies, but the movies do very well with what they can use. This is only one of many different ways to tell a Batman story on the big screen, so they shouldn't have to 'lighten up' or compromise anything that they use to their advantage, and very well too. Let the next version under a different creative direction do the things that this one doesn't.

 

[Two-Face]

Oh god no, I'm glad Chris Nolan is the director of Batman movies.

 

[KalMart]

Which is not to say that the next filmmaker/version shouldn't go for broke with the fantasy stuff.

 

[Naite22]

I think realism should be taken down a notch. IMO, it expands the Batman universe and opens up alot of possibilities for both villians and maybe visual or "audio" cameos.

Maybe, but Nolan has already chosen his style, and it shouldn't be changed!... They can go back and do a batman 5 with George Clooney and Shuemacher as the director, for all I care... BUT DONT MESS WITH NOLAN'S!

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Removing the "realism" from the Nolan-films removes the entire draw of the movies -- and ultimately would invalidate the first two movies. They simply cannot create Two-Face, Joker, Ras and Scarecrow as they did ... and then jump to Man-Bat, the Ventriloquist, or some other hyper-fantastical villain. It wouldn't work, and it would make the first two movies look ridiculous in their attempt to make these characters fit within a realistic environment.

They MUST stick with what has worked so far.

KBZ

 

[Crook]

Erm, the draw of the series is BATMAN. The realism is merely a staple of Nolan's films.

 

[Marx]

I'd just like to say **** Christopher Nolans vision. I really hate it. That's all. You guys type too much.

YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!!!!!

Let's be a little more contructive please. There's no need for this kind of exchange.

 

[Marx]

I think realism should be taken down a notch. IMO, it expands the Batman universe and opens up alot of possibilities for both villians and maybe visual or "audio" cameos.

Even through Nolan's realistic take on the series, there is very little that CAN'T be done.

 

[david icke]

Removing the "realism" from the Nolan-films removes the entire draw of the movies -- and ultimately would invalidate the first two movies. They simply cannot create Two-Face, Joker, Ras and Scarecrow as they did ... and then jump to Man-Bat, the Ventriloquist, or some other hyper-fantastical villain. It wouldn't work, and it would make the first two movies look ridiculous in their attempt to make these characters fit within a realistic environment.

They MUST stick with what has worked so far.

KBZ

I wouldn't lump The Ventriloquist in with those guys as being unrealistic. Having a crazy mob boss who talks through his puppet isn't supernatural. We got a sense of how the gangs are now following super-villan types in BB and TDK, with the Scarecrow and the Joker. If a crazy eccentric type gets the job done the crooks will follow him even if he has a puppet on his knee. In fact I'd much prefer to see the Ventriloquist than just another mob boss in the 3rd movie.
I wouldn't mind someone like Killer Croc either, just have a big guy with a skin condition with filed teeth. That's the way he was portrayed in the early comics evne though he just looked like a big lizard.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bale's Batman going up against super-situations, but I understand what Nolan is doing and it's probably best for him to stick to a non-supernatural/powered enivironment. But, if they can push something like the machine at the end of BB, they can push other technology coming into being. Don't know if sci-fi tech could go as far as having a 'plausible' MrFreeze, but maybe it could be worked in somehow.
Thing is, maybe they could work in sci-fi advances, if the characters are as surprised by it's existence as we would be if it occured in our world. Man-Bat might be a stretch too far, but I'd love to see him onscreen against Bale's Batman. edit: As long as he was the tragic scientist type who was trying to copy Batman like in the comics, not just an unthinking monster like in BTAS.

 

[Figs]

Even through Nolan's realistic take on the series, there is very little that CAN'T be done.

I agree. There are still a good number of villians Nolan can use in his vision/world.

Over at the Spider-Man boards a lot of people are wanting a future film to start out with Spider-Man taking care of a smaller villian that most likely wouldn't be able to hold his own film. I think that idea would be pretty cool for the next Batman film.

My pick would be someone like Firefly. Gordon and the police are having trouble taking Firefly out and Gordon knows he can't call on Batman anymore or even be seen associating with him but smiles a little when Batman happens to show up and whoops Firefly's ass. Just a thought.

I could see Nolan doing something like this. Look at BB and TDK. In BB he had Zasz in there for only a few scenes that barely lasted a minute and Scarecrow only had a minute or so of screentime in TDK to close his arch from the first film.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Erm, the draw of the series is BATMAN. The realism is merely a staple of Nolan's films.

If that were true, then Batman and Robin would've drawn just like the Dark Knight did. Both have Batman. The story, style and realism certainly have some bearing on the draw of these movies. Simply traipsing some random actor in a bat costume across the screen is insufficient.

KBZ

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

I wouldn't lump The Ventriloquist in with those guys as being unrealistic. Having a crazy mob boss who talks through his puppet isn't supernatural. We got a sense of how the gangs are now following super-villan types in BB and TDK, with the Scarecrow and the Joker. If a crazy eccentric type gets the job done the crooks will follow him even if he has a puppet on his knee. In fact I'd much prefer to see the Ventriloquist than just another mob boss in the 3rd movie.
I wouldn't mind someone like Killer Croc either, just have a big guy with a skin condition with filed teeth. That's the way he was portrayed in the early comics evne though he just looked like a big lizard.
I wouldn't mind seeing Bale's Batman going up against super-situations, but I understand what Nolan is doing and it's probably best for him to stick to a non-supernatural/powered enivironment. But, if they can push something like the machine at the end of BB, they can push other technology coming into being. Don't know if sci-fi tech could go as far as having a 'plausible' MrFreeze, but maybe it could be worked in somehow.
Thing is, maybe they could work in sci-fi advances, if the characters are as surprised by it's existence as we would be if it occured in our world. Man-Bat might be a stretch too far, but I'd love to see him onscreen against Bale's Batman. edit: As long as he was the tragic scientist type who was trying to copy Batman like in the comics, not just an unthinking monster like in BTAS.

You may be right about the Ventriloquist. The incarnation I've seen of him (from "The BatMan" Cartoon) had the puppet come to life ... so maybe I was a bit biased by that.

I'm not sure I'm with you on the Killer Croc. I think he and Man-Bat are just too fantastic. I'd lean toward The Riddler and The Penguin for the next villains -- partially because I think they can be done realistically, and partially because they are among the more well-known villains. Mr. Freeze and Catwoman are close, but they'd have to be very careful with Freeze. Personally, I'd like to see someone like James Gandolfini as the Penguin (though I do like the Phillip Seymore Hoffman idea) ... maybe play him as a big-time maniacal mobster.

Off topic ... are you a David Icke fan or something? I've heard of the guy, read a little-bit of his more "out-there" theories ... but never really met anyone that listened much to him.

KBZ

 

[Mister J]

I've long thought that the third Nolan entry would be the concluding chapter on this take. After that, the next time I expect (hope) to see Batman on the big screen would be in a Justice League vehicle, featuring a less-grounded, still respectful character take, leading the way for a new franchise in the same vein (ideally representing the best from both past franchises).

Whatever the case, a dramatic shift in tone/style in the third film isn't needed, especially considering the rumored/most likely villains.

Over at the Spider-Man boards a lot of people are wanting a future film to start out with Spider-Man taking care of a smaller villian that most likely wouldn't be able to hold his own film. I think that idea would be pretty cool for the next Batman film.

I've felt that way about Shocker or possibly The Spot since the first movie. It could work here too. Garfield's a pretty good choice. Maybe even the back end of tracking a serial killer like Zsasz or Tally Man.

 

[Marx]

I've long thought that the third Nolan entry would be the concluding chapter on this take. After that, the next time I expect (hope) to see Batman on the big screen would be in a Justice League vehicle, featuring a less-grounded, still respectful character take, leading the way for a new franchise in the same vein (ideally representing the best from both past franchises).

Whatever the case, a dramatic shift in tone/style in the third film isn't needed, especially considering the rumored/most likely villains.

I've felt that way about Shocker or possibly The Spot since the first movie. It could work here too. Garfield's a pretty good choice. Maybe even the back end of tracking a serial killer like Zsasz or Tally Man.

I think three could be it as well, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a fourth Nolan/Bale Batman. (There's a part of me that thinks Nolan could be doing four, with Begins serving as a prequel to a trilogy.) It's probably more wishful thinking, than anything though.

I do agree that there should be no change in tone or style under Nolan. It works. Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

 

[Crook]

If that were true, then Batman and Robin would've drawn just like the Dark Knight did. Both have Batman. The story, style and realism certainly have some bearing on the draw of these movies. Simply traipsing some random actor in a bat costume across the screen is insufficient.

KBZ

It goes without saying that the story has to be good. I'm saying that the draw and success of this franchise doesn't rely on fantasy/realism. At the end of the day, it's because of the Batman name.

 

[KalMart]

Even through Nolan's realistic take on the series, there is very little that CAN'T be done.

Anything can be 'done'.....the issue is what should be done to best suit the cinematic style that they've adopted and established so well, instead of what should be done to it to become more fantasy-like, or accommodate more fantasy characters/elements. This is Nolan & crew's approach, and at this point if people want something about it changed, especially such a major element of it, they should want a different filmmaker and overall creative direction. Perhaps for the next generation of Bat-movies.

I understand if for some it's a case of having this opportunity of Batman being such a popular movie franchise, that they want to fit a lot of things in. But it is just a single version/interpretation after all's said and done, and doesn't have to be definitive or all-inclusive. I think we should just let it do what it does best, and either accept/appreciate their perspective, or not and let it be. There'll be plenty of other formats/comics/shows/future movie franchises to try out other things.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

It goes without saying that the story has to be good. I'm saying that the draw and success of this franchise doesn't rely on fantasy/realism. At the end of the day, it's because of the Batman name.

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

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.

KBZ

 

[KalMart]

Then again, someone else could have took a more 'realistic' approach and put out lousy movies. It depends on how well the filmmaker utilizes it, and in this case, it's the overall skill of the filmmakers that's responsible for the movies' success....whether they're using 'realism' or not.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Then again, someone else could have took a more 'realistic' approach and put out lousy movies. It depends on how well the filmmaker utilizes it, and in this case, it's the overall skill of the filmmakers that's responsible for the movies' success....whether they're using 'realism' or not.

True enough. Though, I think a movie would have more problems being taken seriously with the more fantastical elements ...

KBZ

 

[KalMart]

True enough. Though, I think a movie would have more problems being taken seriously with the more fantastical elements ...

KBZ

Movies are generally taken as seriously as they entertain, though. Of course, the general noir-ish tone of Batman probably lends itself better to a grittier, more 'realistic' approach...but someone else could have done a more fantasy-like Batman and if done well, it could've been just as well-received as the Nolan approach...albeit, if for different reasons/sensibilities. Luckily, Nolan used that part of it to full advantage with BB/TDK, and especially with the whole allegory to current real-life socio-political issues....which again could easily be mishandled by the wrong person. Basically, I don't think it's worth Nolan pulling back on one of his creative assets if it's so key to what works well overall. There'll be plenty of other opportunities and filmmakers in the future, and perhaps they might take a more fantastic approach from the outset.

Of course, then people will be saying they should pull back on the fantasy and make it more realistic. t:

 

[david icke]

You may be right about the Ventriloquist. The incarnation I've seen of him (from "The BatMan" Cartoon) had the puppet come to life ... so maybe I was a bit biased by that.

I'm not sure I'm with you on the Killer Croc. I think he and Man-Bat are just too fantastic. I'd lean toward The Riddler and The Penguin for the next villains -- partially because I think they can be done realistically, and partially because they are among the more well-known villains. Mr. Freeze and Catwoman are close, but they'd have to be very careful with Freeze. Personally, I'd like to see someone like James Gandolfini as the Penguin (though I do like the Phillip Seymore Hoffman idea) ... maybe play him as a big-time maniacal mobster.

Off topic ... are you a David Icke fan or something? I've heard of the guy, read a little-bit of his more "out-there" theories ... but never really met anyone that listened much to him.

KBZ

The thing about Killer Croc is that he is always portrayed as looking like a big lizard whereas when he first appeared he was described as a guy with a skin condition who made a living wrestling alligators before turning to crime. He could be done without having to look like a lizard, just have him looking scary, scaly skin and perhaps sharp filed teeth, maybe even custom made steel teeth like Jaws in Bond. I think Croc is more doable than Freeze for instance, esp if you want to keep the aspect of Freeze having to live in sub-zero tempratures, that's going into a degree(no pun intended) of science-fiction that is not far from the fantastical, certainly not as mild as what we've had so far in the Nolanverse( memory cloth; water evaporator in BB).

as for the david icke thing... I just happened to see a documentary on him on uk tv a couple of days before joining the forum, so his name was fresh in my mind for using..he has always been a source of amusement and facination to me...he started out as a football goalkeeper then went into tv presenting after injury, but then showed up on tv years later talking about all sorts of out there theories, not least of which was that shape shifting lizards are taking over the Earth. He's an interesting guy no doubt. A copy of his book 'The biggest secret' used to sit unbought in a Glasgow book shop but had been well thumbed to the point of falling apart by any number of folk, I used to always think to myself that it could be like Rorschach's journal in Watchmen.

 

[raynorWilm]

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

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.

KBZ

I agree with you KBZ. The Batman name alone didnt make any of the other bat films into huge successes like TDK. BB did well but not great in theaters, but got progressively more popular when it made it to DVD and soon everyone knew about the realistic nature of this "new" Batman. This element contributed greatly to the success of TDK in its theatrical run..

 

[Punisher Rising]

Removing the "realism" from the Nolan-films removes the entire draw of the movies -- and ultimately would invalidate the first two movies. They simply cannot create Two-Face, Joker, Ras and Scarecrow as they did ... and then jump to Man-Bat, the Ventriloquist, or some other hyper-fantastical villain. It wouldn't work, and it would make the first two movies look ridiculous in their attempt to make these characters fit within a realistic environment.

They MUST stick with what has worked so far.

KBZ

I respectfully disagree. I don't think bringing in more fantastical villains like Man-Bat would invalidate the first two films at all. I think making things too realistic limits the series and doesn't give Batman's other villains a chance to shine onscreen, and getting too many basic criminal types can get old after a while. I think as long as a character like Man-Bat is depicted seriously and faithfully and not made a mockery out of like Schumacher did with his films, I think the more fantasy-like villains absolutely can fit into the new films and freshen it up a good deal. They just have to be careful not to cross the thin line into outright camp and ruin it all.

 

[GregComicFan]

Removing the "realism" from the Nolan-films removes the entire draw of the movies -- and ultimately would invalidate the first two movies. They simply cannot create Two-Face, Joker, Ras and Scarecrow as they did ... and then jump to Man-Bat, the Ventriloquist, or some other hyper-fantastical villain. It wouldn't work, and it would make the first two movies look ridiculous in their attempt to make these characters fit within a realistic environment.

They MUST stick with what has worked so far.

KBZ

I agree. Plus if Nolan decided to lighten up on the realism and he decided to go with a fantastical villain for Batman 3 ... I would be upset, and I'm sure others would be too, that Ras Al Ghul WASN'T IMMORTAL. I mean if Nolan plans on going all fantasy in part 3, then that makes you scratch your head and think "Well, darn, I wish Ras had mentioned the Lazarus Pit now"... "Why didn't Nolan include that to begin with?"