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

As I've said before, I think the serious tone can still be kept even if Nolan decides to loosen his stance on the hyper-realism and bring in characters such as Man-Bat (unlikely as that is to happen). There's just a fine line between fantasy and camp, and Schumacher made the misstep into the latter with his Batman films. Nolan is careful not to cross that thin line.


I think there is 0% chance Nolan will "loosen his stance on hyper-realism". Most characters in the Rogues Gallery could be translated to the screen in a plausible way and still maintain their familiarity anyway. Except Man-Bat.
 
I'm still pretty bummed that Nolan won't loosen up on that, but at least there are a good number of villains he can represent properly onscreen without losing too much of their appeal from the comics or even TAS.
 
that would be a huge jump if all of a sudden he allowed for characters like man-bat. It would be inconsistent.
 
I don't think so, as long as the execution is serious, but that's just me.
 
He shouldn't be asked to 'loosen up' on something that helps make the movies as good as they are. If these movies won't accommodate certain fantastical elements of Batman's comic world/rogues gallery, it's okay because they don't have to cover everything. If what they are able to cover is done well, then let the next version of Batman movies do it differently and do things that these didn't. Maybe for some, they're looking at the opportunity since the Batman movies are so popular these days, but they're not there to service all of Batman lore and cover all those bases over many installments etc., and they don't need to fit everything in. Better to pick fewer parts that fit that particular vision and do it as well as possible so the films themselves stand out in quality instead of quantity.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel the hyper-realism makes the new films work, what makes them work is the good storytelling and mythos, and it doesn't matter to me if it's realistic or not, the story is good and portrayed well, and that's what makes it work to me. It would work just as fine to me if it had more fantastical characters in it.

I'd be fine with the third film continuing the hyper-realism angle, but for the fourth I definitely want to see things mixed up a little more with different villains outside of the more realistic rogues.
 
It's not the overriding key element on which everything depends, but it's an essential part of the whole. And the reason the whole works so well is because everything fits together. Can't just switch one part out or change it up. It's up to us to take it all as it is, or not at all, basically. Let a future version of the Batman world do things differently, while these precious few do it their way.
 
I respectfully disagree that the realism is a key element that makes it work. To me it's more a matter of good storytelling with skillful execution that makes it work and the realism has nothing to do with it. To me, the realism is a give or take component as a whole.
 
It's a stylistic choice and preference of the overall artistic direction. If you want that to change, get a different director. I didn't like the garish and circus-like atmosphere/visuals of the Burton movies or the way it took precedent over narrative....but that's his thing, so I wouldn't ask him to change it...I'd ask for a different take and vision altogether from someone else. The style and approach is their art, their skill at storyteling is their craft. We can endorse both from a particular director, or neither.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. I enjoy both Burton and Nolan's visions of Batman's world, and hope one day we get something of an amalgam of both in a future film.
 
I can see how some Batman fans would find the nature of Nolan's films to be a bit limiting for some areas of the Batman lore, but for me what's more important is how the films come out. I don't need everything from Batman to fit them....just enough to be uniquely Batman, and what's chosen to be portrayed is done well cinematically. No movie should have to be a 'definitive' take on the whole thing. If it's A good take, I want to appreciate what makes it good, without as much concern for what it leaves out. For my tastes, Burton's movies may have lended themselves to the more fantastical elements of Batman and his extended rogues gallery etc., but I didn't like them as films, whereas I appreciate the movies that Nolan made much more.
 
I have a similar outlook on that as you do, but the realism is more of a trivial thing to me. I care more about the quality and the storytelling of the finished product, regardless of the realism aspect. I think Nolan has pulled it off very well so well, but that is due to his talent, not his approach, IMHO.
 
But then again, if you look at the rest of his films, he doesn't make movies like, say, Del Toro or Burton, or even Peter Jackson, for example. It's the artist as a whole, so the fact that his sensibilities lend themselves better to this more 'realistically-grounded' approach isn't trivial if it's that consistent. What leads him, or any good director, to take that stylistic approach is indeed an essential part of their visions and being an artist, and hopefully they're also adept as their craft to put together a good story. So it's a bit unfair to underestimate the 'realism' (I prefer 'anchored by realistic sensibilities') as happenstance or something that could easily change with the flip of a comic whilst maintaining the harmony of everything else involved. That wouldn't be art.

As an (albeit) extreme example on the flip side, if someone were to say that they wished that Matisse would paint his people to look more realistic, or a famous realist painter would make his characters more charicature-like....then they're really asking for different painters overall.
 
Last edited:
Who knows how he'd fare at something that goes beyond his realistically grounded approach, but so far that seems to be a signature of his. Although bearing in mind his only films I've seen have been both of his Batman films, so I'll need to see more of his work to form a better judgment on that.
 
I'd highly recommend Memento and The Prestige....Insomnia not so much. But I would also recommend that you take the term 'realism' with a grain of salt with his films, as I do with anyone applying it towards Batman. It's more about the overall feel...and how when something happens that is surreal of fantastical, it's taken within those story structures as just that, and not something that's considered 'normal' or easily accepted as it would be in a more 'fantastical' world. If a ghost or alien shows up in a fantastical Superman or Star Wars (for example) story, it's not as freaky in concept because there's already a set precedent for it. in a Nolan-directed story, it's looked at more as the kind of phenomenon or anomaly as we'd consider it to be in our real world...even if the story itself takes its own fictional liberties.
 
I'll try to see the non-Batman films of Nolan you mentioned to get more of an idea what his style is like. I've only seen his Batman films. I've heard a lot about Memento.
 
The Prestige is great.
 
I think it also works really well with Batman. Nolan saw an opportunity with batman to create hyper "realism" and it's working very well for most people.

I'm sure it will be switched up in the future someday with more fantasical elements. But I also think you lose some of what makes the last two movies great. I know people will say you can make a more fantasy oriented batman film with a quality filmmaker, and still get a great film....but I'll believe it when I see it. I respond better to hyper realism than strictly fantasy stories. I don't like fantasy elements that come off as other worldy. It never works as well for me. I think fantasy elements should be left to the comics, I think there is a reason why directors need to bring these characters into the real world.

And people forget, Burton was also attempting to bring Batman into the real world. Nolan has just taken it further.
 
Last edited:
I am a big fan of the realism aspect of these movies. I think that when people see realism to a certain degree they think, "This could really happen," and that makes them enjoy the movie more.
 
I don't really care if something is realistic or not and don't care for the whole "this could be real" thing. Movies to me are an escape from reality and if I wanted realism, I could just watch the news and get my fix there. As long as it isn't stupid, I don't care if something in a movie is realistic or not.
 
I don't really care if something is realistic or not and don't care for the whole "this could be real" thing. Movies to me are an escape from reality and if I wanted realism, I could just watch the news and get my fix there. As long as it isn't stupid, I don't care if something in a movie is realistic or not.

Agreed.
 
I agree too. But I still think the movie shouldnt be less realistic. Its not that realistic.
 
Yes it's not true realism we are talking about. It's like Ebert's review of Batman Begins, it's almost like this batman could exist in the real world.

It's not like he could in reality. There are plenty of things about these movies that are extremely out there. But it's that whole tone that Nolan has captured that I think works very well. I know I like it better than not having it.
 
Yes it's not true realism we are talking about. It's like Ebert's review of Batman Begins, it's almost like this batman could exist in the real world.

It's not like he could in reality. There are plenty of things about these movies that are extremely out there. But it's that whole tone that Nolan has captured that I think works very well. I know I like it better than not having it.

My thoughts exactly.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"