The Dark Knight Rises The Dark Knight Rises Info Hunters Thread - - - - - Part 1

[Doc Phosphorus]

I think Nolan probably weighed his options, and I'm sure he considered some sort of pigmentation disease or something as an alternate cause of permawhite, but I wouldn't be surprised if he settled on makeup simply out of thematic concerns.

The story he wanted to tell called for Batman to have a nemesis who, like Bruce, had developed a persona. To have the Joker deliberately put on makeup and go out to terrorize Gotham rather than have his appearance fall upon him through twisted fate worked towards this theme.

Two-Face, on the other hand, served that literal, physical "You made me!" theme that Joker traditionally posesses as well. Perhaps Nolan felt doubling up on that would be excessive or unnecessary, so he let Joker cover the symbolic "causing" of freaks by Batman and left the physical effects to Harvey's story.

In other words, for Batman to be directly or indirectly responsible for the physical deformation of both main villians may have seemed like overkill to Nolan, so he left Joker to be an entirely "self made man."

 

[IamtheBatman]

Hopefully, we'll see Batman running after Bane on the roof I've been waiting for a scene like that in a batman movie!

 

[Doctor Jones]

The word "grounding" is applied to pretty much every comic book movie. It doesn't equate to realistic. As in making it more as if you could believe it in the real world. We are bringing these characters and elements into flesh and blood and into reality. It's making it tangible. They won't be as they are in the comic because it's not the real world. Changes will be made because they won't feel as right. Where it doesn't go into an overboard sense of cartoonishness that could take us out of the film. Spider-Man's costume is more grounded into reality. It's not a flat spandex shiny looking suit as drawn in the comics. Verisimilitude has been applied since Donner and the first Superman film.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's also not possible for someone to sustain Harvey Dent's level of burn damage and live, let alone be able to move his mouth and eye with the muscles needed to perform those functions have been burned away.

It's not possible for a man to fall multiple stories, land on a car hard enough to smash the roof in, and not blow out both his knees.

It's not possible for a man to attach a line to a fast moving train and not only hang on, but not have his arm wrenched out of it's socket.

And heck, instead of listing more individual reasons, I'll just go with this on.

BATMAN IS NOT REALISTIC.

I'm tired of seeing all these "it's not realistic so it can't happen in Nolan's Batman films" arguments. Nolan's Batman films AREN'T realistic. He incorporates pseudo-science and elements of realism to give them a grounded feel, but they're still very much fantastical films. I also don't buy for a minute that Nolan didn't go with the bleached skin because it wasn't "realistic." I believe there was even concept art of an all-white Joker. I think it was simply a stylistic choice. I doubt Nolan is close minded enough to discount the bleached skin because of how "realistic" it is. I'm even more convinced of this fact after we saw the look he went for with Two-Face. If bleached skin was supposedly too "unrealistic" for Nolan, then I'm positive he would have went with a much more realistic burn for Two-Face.

But he didn't. Because no matter what, these are still COMIC-BOOK MOVIES.

Now, that said, there are still some Batman characters he probably won't utilize, because he does have an element of groundedness to these movies. Clayface, Manbat etc. But he certainly still has unrealistic events in his movies.

Now, does this mean I think he'll include the Lazarus Pits? Not necessarily. If he does, I think he'd probably alter them in some way as opposed to bringing back someone from the dead. Possibly they simply heal a body much faster then any conventional medicine could. But Nolan could certainly find a way to fit the pits into his world with the boundaries he's set up.

Well said. Nolan's films aren't "realistic." They're more plausible than anything.

 

[Alex Logan]

So I see you're part of the "everything has to be realistic crowd".

They don't have to explain it. They have artistic licence. Explain to me how Two-Face is able to walk around speaking normally, and without being in crippling pain?

No, wrong. You see don't see anything because you're not taking the time to look at what I'm saying objectively. You've made up you're mind and you don't care what I have to say.

Yes, sorry, they do have to explain it because they have given us many explanations in the past. Yes, some they have taken artistic licence with, but the explanation was there. You can't just put a bubbling pit of goo in the film and have it heal a broken spin or return some from the dead without explaining it. And just so we are clear, there is no explanation for the pit without totally diving in the fanasty world of Batman.

As I ALREADY told you, Two-Face is one instance of Nolan streching the realism. In this case I'm fine with it because without it there would have been no way to accurately bring the character film. This is not the case with Ra's or Bane.

Yes, he would have been in pain and yes he would have had problems talking, but no one knows what a person is capable of with this kind of injury. Go read some documented case about Vietnam. People have had thir legs blown off and pulled others to safety before dying later on. Now if Two-Face had lived, I would have call shenanigans.

And by the way I talked to actual doctor about this very thing just this morning. He addressed each issue:

"Two-Face might have had problems talking depending on what was going on with his tounge and the inside of mouth."

"He would have intense pain depending on what happened with the nerves in his face."

"Could he have done what he did in the film? It's unlikely, but not impossible. People have been known to do amazing things when they have the will to do it. However, there is no way he could lived without treatment because he would have gotten an infection and died."

There you have it. Go read some medical doctorate next time.

Just to clear something up;

The joker using make-up as opposed to white skin was a stylistic, characterisation decision as opposed to one made out of any reverence to realism. Even a cursory glance over the concept art shows this, whith several joker concepts being clearly "perma-white."

Indeed, the concept works really well, in my view. A man who has chosen to put on this make-up and become this.... thing, is far scarier than someone who has fallen into a vat of chemicals and been driven insane as a result. He chooses to be this way. And that is terrifying. The traumatic experience is still maintained, of course, by the mysterious cut smile; one is ragged, the other finely crafted, suggesting that one was accidental, the other chosen. So his face was cut, he decides to cut the other side to complete the smile, and then progresses from there with the make-up and hair-dye.

To make that decision, that is far more frightening, and impossible to fully understand. Just as the Joker should be.

Exactly. The guy above could learn from you.

 

[BatScot]

Just to clear something up;

The joker using make-up as opposed to white skin was a stylistic, characterisation decision as opposed to one made out of any reverence to realism. Even a cursory glance over the concept art shows this, whith several joker concepts being clearly "perma-white."

Indeed, the concept works really well, in my view. A man who has chosen to put on this make-up and become this.... thing, is far scarier than someone who has fallen into a vat of chemicals and been driven insane as a result. He chooses to be this way. And that is terrifying. The traumatic experience is still maintained, of course, by the mysterious cut smile; one is ragged, the other finely crafted, suggesting that one was accidental, the other chosen. So his face was cut, he decides to cut the other side to complete the smile, and then progresses from there with the make-up and hair-dye.

To make that decision, that is far more frightening, and impossible to fully understand. Just as the Joker should be.

Quite so. Nonetheless, the reasoning is incomplete. It is more complicated—realistically—to explain perma-white skin (albinism and skin-bleaching not withstanding) than it is to present someone who wears make-up and to say Nolan choose make-up only for stylistic reasons is to ignore the obvious: make-up was also chosen for the character in order to maintain a sense of realism given that it is more probable that a man who appears in white-face is wearing make-up.

 

[Alex Logan]

Anyone who thinks there's going to be a pit that brings people back from the Dead and gives them immortal life (in a literal sense) in one of these films should know that I have a bridge to sell them

This.

Enough.

How can you scream they're not realistic and then quote his groundedness argument at the same time?

You know, just as well as anyone, that groundedness is using realism to a certain degree, it's not limiting the films to things that can happen but, things that are not beyond a great stretch of imagination.

A Vigilante is not beyond comprehension: his suit and training are just extensions of that

A microwave emitter isn't beyond comprehension: how and why it's used are just extensions of that

A man surviving a blast to the face and half his face burned off isn't beyond comprehension: the duration of his survival and his actions during the injury are just extensions of that.

A man surviving a high fall (and being aided by some fiber cloth scientific mumbo jumbo) is not beyond comprehension: his injuries there after are just extensions of that

So when someone says The Lazarus Pit isn't realistic enough to be in a Nolan film YOU KNOW EXACTLY what they mean. Jumping on them about how these movies aren't realistic neither argues your point or provides any insight to the tone of the films. To say they're not realistic is just as well as saying they're fantastical and totally unrealistic, an abstract piece of art that has no ties to realism at all and that's not true.

If you want to discuss something you could at least provide something of some real substance instead of the same boring Two-Face is unrealistic line.

Well is he? I don't think so, I've seen people survive burns before, terrible burns but, the degree of Two-Face in TDK is an extreme, I get that, It's not possible but, the core of the situation isn't absurd at all.

Someone building a gun that can freeze people instantly and freeze an entire town, city, area has NO basis in realism at all and that is fantasy.

Groundedness is just another way to categorize realism, it means that the situation starts off as something possible but can expand into something else, something grand. It's like a real seed and a synthetic tree.

The difference between a facial injury and a pit that provides immunity from mortality are stark. So grouping them together is being inflammatory to simply prove your point.

Distorting the facts and twisting them to work your way is just as wrong as saying something totally false.

I can admit there are parts of Nolan's Batman films that are not possible but, that doesn't mean that the core of those situations were not originally bound in realism. If it starts there in some kind of believable premise and then develops into something more it is STILL GROUNDED.

Lazarus pits and things of that nature are not things that can be grounded because they're origins are fantasy, or at the very least so-removed from it's original real premise that the realistic premise can no longer be called it's core.

So when I see these inane post about how Nolan's films are "Realistic" or how "unrealistic" they are I find myself pulling out my hair. You are BOTH wrong in this case; any good story teller knows that you have to use elements of both to keep your audience understanding and keep your audience interested.

A good liar always uses elements of the truth in his lies or else it's pure fantasy.

So please, for love of everything good in this world, cut off the ridiculous dualities of real versus unreal when each side knows good and well that parts of the films are realistic while others are fantasy and more often than not parts of the films are both at the same time.

And this.

But I'm curious, how this is groundless:

Based on the most common origin from the comics, please exlain to me how the Joker's skin could be permanently bleached white after falling into a vat of chemicals only one time for a matter of minutes.

This is not possible.

However, bleaching your skin is possible, but it's not probable or practical for a character like the Joker. Bleaching the skin would take alot of time and many repeated treaments to keep the skin white. It's also very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, you can give yourself chemical burns. The final product would never be truely white either, the blood flow under the skin would cause color to return.

Now, why would the Joker spent countless hours bleaching his skin when he could just put on makeup? He would spend all his time bleaching and no time being an agent of chaos. Sound like a pretty useless Joker to me, thus leading us to Nolan's Batman, which explains the reason why a permanently bleached Joker is not realistic.

Are you saying the facts I've stated about bleaching your skin is not grounded?

 

[BatScot]

Enough.

How can you scream they're not realistic and then quote his groundedness argument at the same time?

You know, just as well as anyone, that groundedness is using realism to a certain degree, it's not limiting the films to things that can happen but, things that are not beyond a great stretch of imagination.

A Vigilante is not beyond comprehension: his suit and training are just extensions of that

A microwave emitter isn't beyond comprehension: how and why it's used are just extensions of that

A man surviving a blast to the face and half his face burned off isn't beyond comprehension: the duration of his survival and his actions during the injury are just extensions of that.

A man surviving a high fall (and being aided by some fiber cloth scientific mumbo jumbo) is not beyond comprehension: his injuries there after are just extensions of that

So when someone says The Lazarus Pit isn't realistic enough to be in a Nolan film YOU KNOW EXACTLY what they mean. Jumping on them about how these movies aren't realistic neither argues your point or provides any insight to the tone of the films. To say they're not realistic is just as well as saying they're fantastical and totally unrealistic, an abstract piece of art that has no ties to realism at all and that's not true.

If you want to discuss something you could at least provide something of some real substance instead of the same boring Two-Face is unrealistic line.

Well is he? I don't think so, I've seen people survive burns before, terrible burns but, the degree of Two-Face in TDK is an extreme, I get that, It's not possible but, the core of the situation isn't absurd at all.

Someone building a gun that can freeze people instantly and freeze an entire town, city, area has NO basis in realism at all and that is fantasy.

Groundedness is just another way to categorize realism, it means that the situation starts off as something possible but can expand into something else, something grand. It's like a real seed and a synthetic tree.

The difference between a facial injury and a pit that provides immunity from mortality are stark. So grouping them together is being inflammatory to simply prove your point.

Distorting the facts and twisting them to work your way is just as wrong as saying something totally false.

I can admit there are parts of Nolan's Batman films that are not possible but, that doesn't mean that the core of those situations were not originally bound in realism. If it starts there in some kind of believable premise and then develops into something more it is STILL GROUNDED.

Lazarus pits and things of that nature are not things that can be grounded because they're origins are fantasy, or at the very least so-removed from it's original real premise that the realistic premise can no longer be called it's core.

So when I see these inane post about how Nolan's films are "Realistic" or how "unrealistic" they are I find myself pulling out my hair. You are BOTH wrong in this case; any good story teller knows that you have to use elements of both to keep your audience understanding and keep your audience interested.

A good liar always uses elements of the truth in his lies or else it's pure fantasy.

So please, for love of everything good in this world, cut off the ridiculous dualities of real versus unreal when each side knows good and well that parts of the films are realistic while others are fantasy and more often than not parts of the films are both at the same time.

This IS the man to learn from!

 

[Doctor Jones]

I prefer the make up. It makes the idea of the Joker even more insane. It asks the question of why he does it. That along with his ambiguity and force of nature characterization makes it even more interesting. It's all a mystery. It adds to his menace.

 

[Mako]

I prefer the make up. It makes the idea of the Joker even more insane. It asks the question of why he does it. That along with his ambiguity and force of nature characterization makes it even more interesting. It's all a mystery. It adds to his menace.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I found this. Nothing much but it pretty much confirms TDKR will be at the expo. Scroll down a bit and you'll see the title.

http://exhibit.licensingexpo.com/LC.../index.aspx?content=vbooth&exhibitorid=91505B

 

[Alex Logan]

I found this. Nothing much but it pretty much confirms TDKR will be at the expo. Scroll down a bit and you'll see the title.

http://exhibit.licensingexpo.com/LC.../index.aspx?content=vbooth&exhibitorid=91505B

Good find.

 

[The_Raganork]

This.



And this.

But I'm curious, how this is groundless:



Are you saying the facts I've stated about bleaching your skin is not grounded?

They're very grounded; and I think if that were the case it would have believable and worked in Nolan's films.

I, however, think the knowledge that this man puts on make-up everyday to wreak havoc is interesting and a bit unnerving/scary.

Just as when he's talking to the ferries he has his speech written down, I think that makes him calculating; he PLANS this stuff. That's scary, a a psychopath can make errors, he's not thinking, he doesn't think, he just does things

Joker isn't that guy, he plans his entire lie about not being a schemer is funny, and ironic, he LIES to Harvey, he has a silver-tongue. It's all those calculating details that make him a force and not just some psychotic clown

 

[Alex Logan]

They're very grounded; and I think if that were the case it would have believable and worked in Nolan's films.

I, however, think the knowledge that this man puts on make-up everyday to wreak havoc is interesting and a bit unnerving/scary.

Just as when he's talking to the ferries he has his speech written down, I think that makes him calculating; he PLANS this stuff. That's scary, a a psychopath can make errors, he's not thinking, he doesn't think, he just does things

Joker isn't that guy, he plans his entire lie about not being a schemer is funny, and ironic, he LIES to Harvey, he has a silver-tongue. It's all those calculating details that make him a force and not just some psychotic clown

Ah, thank you for clearling that up. And I agree 100% with everthing you've said thus far. You really know your stuff.

 

[The_Raganork]

Ah, thank you for clearling that up. And I agree 100% with everthing you've said thus far. You really know your stuff.

Thanks

I try to be objective; A lot of people on here try to be right.

I'm looking for the most sensible answer, not how to prove my opinion as fact.

 

[Troy_Parker]

No, wrong. You see don't see anything because you're not taking the time to look at what I'm saying objectively. You've made up you're mind and you don't care what I have to say.

Yes, sorry, they do have to explain it because they have given us many explanations in the past. Yes, some they have taken artistic licence with, but the explanation was there. You can't just put a bubbling pit of goo in the film and have it heal a broken spin or return some from the dead without explaining it. And just so we are clear, there is no explanation for the pit without totally diving in the fanasty world of Batman.

As I ALREADY told you, Two-Face is one instance of Nolan streching the realism. In this case I'm fine with it because without it there would have been no way to accurately bring the character film. This is not the case with Ra's or Bane.

Yes, he would have been in pain and yes he would have had problems talking, but no one knows what a person is capable of with this kind of injury. Go read some documented case about Vietnam. People have had thir legs blown off and pulled others to safety before dying later on. Now if Two-Face had lived, I would have call shenanigans.

And by the way I talked to actual doctor about this very thing just this morning. He addressed each issue:

"Two-Face might have had problems talking depending on what was going on with his tounge and the inside of mouth."

"He would have intense pain depending on what happened with the nerves in his face."

"Could he have done what he did in the film? It's unlikely, but not impossible. People have been known to do amazing things when they have the will to do it. However, there is no way he could lived without treatment because he would have gotten an infection and died."

There you have it. Go read some medical doctorate next time.



Exactly. The guy above could learn from you.

I never said the lazarus pit could heal a broken spine. BUT, as I've already said... (and this will satisfy your need for an explanation) what if they come up with some pseduo-scientific explanation as to how the pit has healing properties.

Would you then be happy?

I'm not saying the lazarus pit is definitely going to be in the movie but, it could be. Nolan's got a way with things, you can bet that if he does use the pit, he'll explain how (even if vaguely) it works.

 

[Alex Logan]

Thanks

I try to be objective; A lot of people on here try to be right.

I'm looking for the most sensible answer, not how to prove my opinion as fact.

You're welcome.

I try to do the same thing, while looking at it from the other person's point of view.

 

[The_Raganork]

I never said the lazarus pit could heal a broken spine. BUT, as I've already said... (and this will satisfy your need for an explanation) what if they come up with some pseduo-scientific explanation as to how the pit has healing properties.

Would you then be happy?

I'm not saying the lazarus pit is definitely going to be in the movie but, it could be. Nolan's got a way with things, you can bet that if he does use the pit, he'll explain how (even if vaguely) it works.

I agree but, that is a big if.

The Lazarus pit is a pure fantasy element. There are therapeutic pits in the world, to go from that to complete healing or even immortality is a hard stretch

It has to stay 'grounded' at some point and I'm having a hard time seeing how that bridge can be made

But that's not to say Nolan hasn't thought of something great that does bridge that gap.

 

[Alex Logan]

I never said the lazarus pit could heal a broken spine. BUT, as I've already said... (and this will satisfy your need for an explanation) what if they come up with some pseduo-scientific explanation as to how the pit has healing properties.

Would you then be happy?

I'm not saying the lazarus pit is definitely going to be in the movie but, it could be. Nolan's got a way with things, you can bet that if he does use the pit, he'll explain how (even if vaguely) it works.

I think I'm stating to get you now. Maybe the problem here was communication.

Understand that most people who talk about the pit believe that it will heal Batman's broken spin and/or bring Ra's back from the dead. Now if you're telling me that your idea of a pit would not be able to do those things and it would only have "healing properties" then I can accept that because it is based on something that is grounded. It's another stretch, but given what Nolan has done in the past I could see it.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Have you guys seen Wanted? There's nothing too fantastical about that movie apart from the wax bath that speeds up healing, what if something similar is used as the basis for the lazarus pit. Rather than healing somebody, it just contains chemicals that speed up the healing process.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I think I'm stating to get you now. Maybe the problem here was communication.

Understand that most people who talk about the pit believe that it will heal Batman's broken spin and/or bring Ra's back from the dead. Now if you're telling me that your idea of a pit would not be able to do those things and it would only have "healing properties" then I can accept that because it is based on something that is grounded. It's another stretch, but given what Nolan has done in the past I could see it.

I agree that using the lazarus pit to bring back Ra's would be ludicrous... and yeah, that's exactly what I mean. The lazarus pit, but with more grounded in reality properties.

 

[The_Raganork]

I think I'm stating to get you now. Maybe the problem here was communication.

Understand that most people who talk about the pit believe that it will heal Batman's broken spin and/or bring Ra's back from the dead. Now if you're telling me that your idea of a pit would not be able to do those things and it would only have "healing properties" then I can accept that because it is based on something that is grounded.

My only issue with this is: what would the point of it be then? I mean if he's going to get his back healed from resting or something else I don't see why saying "oh and the Lazarus pit helped" is necessary. Just seems to a cameo for fan's sake and there aren't many of them in this films.

Seems too frivolous; if the Laz pit is in the film, it's got to have a point, a big point pretty much.

I still think if the Laz Pit is in the film, it's a religious sort of pit, like a baptism tank; starting lives over so to speak. Some place to be absolved of sins from the past and become someone new, to be born again.

Something Bruce may need to do in light of his position at the end of TDK

 

[Alex Logan]

Have you guys seen Wanted? There's nothing too fantastical about that movie apart from the wax bath that speeds up healing, what if something similar is used as the basis for the lazarus pit. Rather than healing somebody, it just contains chemicals that speed up the healing process.

Perfect example.

 

[Alex Logan]

My only issue with this is: what would the point of it be then? I mean if he's going to get his back healed from resting or something else I don't see why saying "oh and the Lazarus pit helped" is necessary. Just seems to a cameo for fan's sake and there aren't many of them in this films.

Seems too frivolous; if the Laz pit is in the film, it's got to have a point, a big point pretty much.

I still think if the Laz Pit is in the film, it's a religious sort of pit, like a baptism tank; starting lives over so to speak. Some place to be absolved of sins from the past and become someone new, to be born again.

Something Bruce may need to do in light of his position at the end of TDK

I was thinking that just as I posed that comment, which is why I don't think we will see the pit.

I agree that using the lazarus pit to bring back Ra's would be ludicrous... and yeah, that's exactly what I mean. The lazarus pit, but with more grounded in reality properties.

Alright, I understand now. But just as Raganork8 has pointed out, what would be the point of it then?

 

[GlasgowBat]

Quite so. Nonetheless, the reasoning is incomplete. It is more complicated—realistically—to explain perma-white skin (albinism and skin-bleaching not withstanding) than it is to present someone who wears make-up and to say Nolan choose make-up only for stylistic reasons is to ignore the obvious: make-up was also chosen for the character in order to maintain a sense of realism given that it is more probable that a man who appears in white-face is wearing make-up.

I don't see much evidence for this. What I would say, tho, Is that Nolan clearly wanted to maintain an air of mystery around the Joker, hence the lack of origin. And make-up is more conducive to this, as an audience can see it for themselves, and therefore no further explanation or reasoning for the look is required.

Therefore, I feel that as well as the thematic and stylistic aspect of the choice we've discussed already, it is far more that make-up helps maintain the mystery than is realistic.