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

[Anubis]

yes batman has battled aliens and wizards, but fact of that matter is many comics SUCK!

i mean why don't we just have a films with the batmite in them?

seriously its a slippery slope. we've had the rediculous camp. I do think that we can eventually have a more balanced batman film but for now, with this present series i hope they keep it as it is.

First of all, the same could be said for the "realistic" comics. Lotta those sucked too. But for every Batman Year One, you have a Batman and the Monster Men. Batman can be just as awesome fighting 10 foot tall genetically altered vagrants as he would beating up muggers in a cold dank alley.

Secondly, Fantastic does not equal Camp. Next thing you'll tell me District 9 camp. Was the Prestige Camp? Sci-fi, magic, super science, all of this it is a part of the Batman mythos. To dismiss it as campy boos**t is, just, insane.

Lastly, we should be so lucky to get Batmite into a movie.

Also, are there really 22 other people on here named redhawk???

 

[Mr. Earle]

I envision the Penguin to be a technology-investing, weapons manufacturer mogul, but that's just me.

I was reading your post in a hurry and i read: "weapons provided by Mongul" and i remembered that Brave and the Bold episode that Batman becomes a gladiator in Warworld. God, i'd really like to see a movie like that!

 

[General_Obol]

I was reading your post in a hurry and i read: "weapons provided by Mongul" and i remembered that Brave and the Bold episode that Batman becomes a gladiator in Warworld. God, i'd really like to see a movie like that!

With all the great animated direct-to-DVD movies DC is putting out, I can't say it's never going to happen. Maybe in the Batman/Superman sequel they're supposedly working on.

 

[Mistah K88]

Too similiar, I'd say.

In reality, Realism is a very good tool for Nolan but only when he can push the limits of it, like with the memory cloth, the microwave emitter or the huge bat-sonar. And Mr. Freeze biggest selling point for me is his shot at redemption and his motive. But by motive I don't mean revenge: I mean saving his wife's life, which sets him apart of Dent while maintaining the obvious similarities.

Also, I believe there is great plausibility already in the concept of Freeze with just minimal changes. This is my concept:

Spoiler

His name is Victor Fries. He suffers from CIPA, which means he can't feel pain nor temperatures. He cannot feel heat nor cold, never could in his life due to his condition. He was brilliant but socially miserable until he met and married his wife Norah. He worked for many months in low lab temperatures in a research about hibernation, which he fully commited to after his wife got sick with a rare fatal illness.
His desperate solution to the problem was to submit her into cryostasis to gain time to find a cure.
That goes on, until he suffers the tragic accident we all know about, but freakishly survives. In his new state, he loses all his hair, his skin turns pale blue due to little oxygen consumption (he goes cyanotic) and he needs to remain in the same low temperatures; a drastic change would give him a heat stroke and send him into hyperthermia and death. He begins wearing a powered exoskeleton suit that increases his body strength (reducing his waste of energy) and protects him from enviromental temperatures.
Basically, he is in the balance between life and death, and in that delicate health balance he must do whatever it takes to cure his wife.

There are many holes there but if you thought it sounded realistic, it was more than enough. If you didn't, well, that's all I've got.

EDIT:

Here are some didactic links to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congeni...ith_anhidrosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspend...an_hibernation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryosta...hrate_hydrates)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanosis#Central_cyanosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton

For Your Consideration.

Gaius, while you did do a good job with your Mr. Freeze, the fact that you did go out and beyond to find if these things actually exist is exactly what I was talking about. I just wonder if the explanations of his physical condition are really all that needed (for example, I'm pretty sure they won't say exactly what he has (CIPA) in the film if used in your way). How much do we have to explain before it becomes over explained? I mean we do need to know that there has to be something wrong with him physically, but the question is, "does his disease or condition really have to exist in our world to make any sense?" For example, say in TDK Joker didn't wear make up but was just chalk white with naturally green hair, red lips and no explanation for the way he looks physically, would it have been too unrealistic?

 

[redhawk23]

no i just happen to like the number 23, as i am born on the 23rd of september

and i'm all for crazyness in a batman film just i'd like to see nolan finish out what he started

 

[QueenChaos]

I love some seriousness and some not-so-seriousness, I adore a variety of renditions when it comes to Batman. There are reasons to love some of the more ridiculous things just as we can respect the more realistic things. I would say the answer to this is obvious though, it began serious so it should also end serious. If it reached some sort of middle-ground then I could see it going either way, but it would sort of ruin the picture if you drastically changed the mood of things in my opinion. For this particular franchise, stick to realism I say, some people like it and some people don't but that is what the Nolan Batman seems to be all about and I see no need to lighten it up. One thing that ought to be lightened up for the pure SAKE of keeping this realistic and serious rather than ridiculous - is when things go over the top. Like say, Batman's growly voice in TDK for example. I think that it was a little ridiculous, and so in contrast with scenes Batman is in that are meant to be taken seriously - the voice is a little much and sort of ruins the mood just a tad.

 

[Laderlappen]

People are talking about these movies like they are realistic.

 

[Anubis]

That's what i'm not understanding. All they're doing is taking the time to try and explain the s**t that would never work in real life.

 

[Punisher Rising]

I love some seriousness and some not-so-seriousness,

Being unrealistic isn't the same as not being serious. You can have something realistic that isn't serious, either.

 

[BatScot]

When Nolan tries to lighten things up we get a bad coat joke, an annoying kid, and Batman showing up at a party and jumping out a window after his girlfriend. Why so serious? Because Nolan's Batman is better that way.

 

[HUMANIMAL]

Being unrealistic isn't the same as not being serious. You can have something realistic that isn't serious, either.

something unrealistic taken seriously is on its wayt:

dont bother on lighten realism up

they made sandman believable...they could do clayface also...even in the nolanverse

they could also sc**w it up , no doubt ha ha...
showin impossible things on screen is a filmakers job and passion.
for the maybe last batman film with nolan...( i really hope so )it shouldnt be to much away of what really could happen;-)
but for further approaches they could surely try some more fantastic things with it.

 

[QueenChaos]

Sure it's not the same, but the whole tone wasn't just to convey realism, but also to have the idea taken seriously. In my personal opinion they absolutely go hand in hand, at least with Nolan's films. Utilizing the realism is a way to have it be taken more seriously. Although many would think, as mentioned here, that it can be so "realistic" that it's "unrealistic" - and I guess that might be the true issue.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Sure it's not the same, but the whole tone wasn't just to convey realism, but also to have the idea taken seriously. In my personal opinion they absolutely go hand in hand, at least with Nolan's films. Utilizing the realism is a way to have it be taken more seriously. Although many would think, as mentioned here, that it can be so "realistic" that it's "unrealistic" - and I guess that might be the true issue.

I agree with this.

 

[Punisher Rising]

Sure it's not the same, but the whole tone wasn't just to convey realism, but also to have the idea taken seriously. In my personal opinion they absolutely go hand in hand, at least with Nolan's films. Utilizing the realism is a way to have it be taken more seriously. Although many would think, as mentioned here, that it can be so "realistic" that it's "unrealistic" - and I guess that might be the true issue.

I don't think they necessarily go hand in hand. To me, they aren't synomous (sp?). Unrealistic material can translate well so long as it's taken seriously and treated with respect to it's source material. More fantasy oriented characters like Clayface and Man-Bat can be done very well so long as they're taken seriously and are faithful to their comic counterparts. Characters like these can raise the stakes Batman is up against because he isn't just up against ordinary criminals anymore, but monstrous threats that push him to his limit and thus make him a hero the audience sides even more with and wants to see him succeed against seemingly impossible odds. After a while, I think the hyper realism approach would get stale and dull, because it ends up becoming more of the same after a while and also doesn't allow other great characters in the Batman universe to get their dues onscreen. Something more unrealistic and fantasy-oriented can still be done in a serious manner and in a way that compliments the story and doesn't go overboard. It's a matter of the execution behind it to make it work.

 

[MacLeod]

I was refering specifically to your issue with the origin portrayed by nolan. A concern i have not heard before from anyone else. What you described is pretty much what nolan gave except adding some depth by having bruce be confused at first at his path in life in the aftermath of his parents. Again this is a movie it can't be so cut and paste like you can in the comics there has to be depth portrayed.

Instead of portraying a 10 year starting to devote his life to figting crime you have a twenty something bruce doing so which i think greatly aided the story and character. There was nothing radical about nolan's depiction of batman's origin, this is a point i still think you are alone on.

So was I. How is a boy choosing to fight crime and working on it every day the same as a lost twenty-something who gets thrown in jail? That's not depth, that's a new storyline. The only thing Bruce is supposed to be confused about is what type of costume to make, not if he should stay in college, shoot a gangster, run away from Gotham, or why he's in prison. I'm not asking for cut and paste, but those are two entirely different ideas.

Many martial artists train for more than seven years, wouldn't they be better than Batman in Nolan's version?, Add into the idea if any of them studied any schooling on criminals, science, technology, etc. they would know more than Bruce in Nolan's version as well. That's not Batman to me.

You think it greatly added to the story, I think it took something away. I would have much rather seen the main character be better than everyone else in the world by training hard for it, not being lost and then training for only seven years for it. If you don't see the entire thing as being different and radical more power to you, and I may be alone on this, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

 

[nogap87]

He's only doing A version/interpretation of Batman, not trying to redefine the character altogether. I still think the essence of the character and his story are maintained very well, and these films are a unique perspective on it without having to be judged as definitive (or trying to be). And just because he decided to take a rather non-comic approach isn't necessarily an dismissal/indictment on comics. If anything, it shows a deeper respect for the actual material that's able to transcend the two mediums. So in that respect, he's given us something that's no less of a Batman story, even though it's less of a comic representation...the latter being more a matter of taste than a value measurement or better/worse.

My problem is that Nolan's version of Batman is so ordinary. I never got the feeling that I was watching the world's greatest detective or a top notch fighter. I just saw a fairly smart guy in a (crappy) Bat themed rubber suit who throws a couple of punches and drives like a maniac.

 

[nogap87]

So was I. How is a boy choosing to fight crime and working on it every day the same as a lost twenty-something who gets thrown in jail? That's not depth, that's a new storyline. The only thing Bruce is supposed to be confused about is what type of costume to make, not if he should stay in college, shoot a gangster, run away from Gotham, or why he's in prison. I'm not asking for cut and paste, but those are two entirely different ideas.

Many martial artists train for more than seven years, wouldn't they be better than Batman in Nolan's version?, Add into the idea if any of them studied any schooling on criminals, science, technology, etc. they would know more than Bruce in Nolan's version as well. That's not Batman to me.

You think it greatly added to the story, I think it took something away. I would have much rather seen the main character be better than everyone else in the world by training hard for it, not being lost and then training for only seven years for it. If you don't see the entire thing as being different and radical more power to you, and I may be alone on this, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

I feel the same way. Nolan's Batman is too watered down. There is nothing extraordinary about him.

 

[TheBatman072]

Jesus GOD in Heaven I hate this thread.

Watered Down! Nothing extraordinary!!

Look at the scene at the end of TDK! He not only saved the hospital patients from getting shot by SWAT, but he ALSO took out all of the Joker's thugs AND saved the SWAT from getting shot BY the Joker's thugs while simultaneously avoiding getting CAPTURED!

That seems pretty ****ing extraordinary to me.

 

[MacLeod]

Jesus GOD in Heaven I hate this thread.

Watered Down! Nothing extraordinary!!

Look at the scene at the end of TDK! He not only saved the hospital patients from getting shot by SWAT, but he ALSO took out all of the Joker's thugs AND saved the SWAT from getting shot BY the Joker's thugs while simultaneously avoiding getting CAPTURED!

That seems pretty ****ing extraordinary to me.

Extrodinary, yes, Batman, not necessarily. You're missing what people are complaining about. The look and feel of the main character is not there. Just because he's the hero doesn't mean it's a Batman movie, TDK could be a generic vigilante movie and that's why people are saying the movie is watered down. The look and feel of Batman is gone for me, and apparently others as well.

 

[MacLeod]

I feel the same way. Nolan's Batman is too watered down. There is nothing extraordinary about him.

I feel the same way, Nolan's Batman is not Batman to me.

 

[The Joker]

I feel the same way, Nolan's Batman is not Batman to me.

Maybe these movies are not for you then? As a Batman fan, I couldn't watch a movie where he didn't feel right.

 

[MacLeod]

My problem is that Nolan's version of Batman is so ordinary. I never got the feeling that I was watching the world's greatest detective or a top notch fighter. I just saw a fairly smart guy in a (crappy) Bat themed rubber suit who throws a couple of punches and drives like a maniac.

You saw that because that's what was given to us. He wasn't a great dectective and he wasn't a top notch fighter (he couldn't be, there wasn't enough training for either of the two) and for that he's not Batman for me.

 

[MacLeod]

Maybe these movies are not for you then? As a Batman fan, I couldn't watch a movie where he didn't feel right.

I'm a HUGE Batman fan, and you're right, these movies aren't that great for me. Then again, I've always said that.

 

[regwec]

I wouldn't go that far. The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is rather well maintained by Nolan and Bale between them. The factors inhibiting the "Batman-ness" of the Nolan movies are broader ones of tone and style, I feel.

So, I completely buy BB and TDK's Batman as Batman (even in his silly rubber suit), but it feels like Batman has strayed into a less lively, less exciting and more downbeat world than Earth One of the DCU.

 

[nogap87]

Jesus GOD in Heaven I hate this thread.

Watered Down! Nothing extraordinary!!

Look at the scene at the end of TDK! He not only saved the hospital patients from getting shot by SWAT, but he ALSO took out all of the Joker's thugs AND saved the SWAT from getting shot BY the Joker's thugs while simultaneously avoiding getting CAPTURED!

That seems pretty ****ing extraordinary to me.

Both that and the caravan scene were cool and intense. The "character" of Batman is neither in Nolan's world.

Extrodinary, yes, Batman, not necessarily. You're missing what people are complaining about. The look and feel of the main character is not there. Just because he's the hero doesn't mean it's a Batman movie, TDK could be a generic vigilante movie and that's why people are saying the movie is watered down. The look and feel of Batman is gone for me, and apparently others as well.

This.