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

[batman_gr]

We shouldn't worry about plot points. I have a feeling we'll be getting a synopsis quite soon. Just a hunch.

 

[Alex Logan]

We shouldn't worry about plot points. I have a feeling we'll be getting a synopsis quite soon. Just a hunch.

Exactly.

 

[Troy_Parker]

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.

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?

 

[MMoralN10Tion]

Has anyone seen this? There's no discussion of it and it's rather interesting. Pre-production make-up tests perhaps?

http://themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/christianbale-thedarkknightrises.jpg

 

[Troy_Parker]

Never mind all that. Remember the hole that everybody said was the Pit?

Remember how SHALLOW it was? It looked to be about knee length if that.

Yeah, not really all that easy to sink into.

...They had that green screen tarp thing over it, they can make it bottom-less if they want to. lol.

 

[Nevincer]

Has anyone seen this? There's no discussion of it and it's rather interesting. Pre-production make-up tests perhaps?

http://themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/christianbale-thedarkknightrises.jpg

That's from Rescue Dawn.

 

[StarLord]

That's from Rescue Dawn.

How do you know that?

 

[Nevincer]

How do you know that?

It's been posted in iterations of this thread about a million times and that has always been the answer.

 

[StarLord]

It's been posted in iterations of this thread about a million times and that has always been the answer.

Ah okay, cool.

Just wondered. Thanks.

 

[Nevincer]

Ah okay, cool.

Just wondered. Thanks.

No problem

 

[StarLord]

It makes me wonder why websites post pics like that?

Someone is going to remember or find it somewhere else, especially if it's from an old movie and has been posted in forums.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I want some news from this Expo I feel like we've been waiting forever.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Tomorrow it starts right?

 

[Solidus]

Does it? I thought it was not until Tuesday.

 

[Mako]

Tuesday is correct.

 

[Travesty]

All I know, is that Alex Logan gets the multi-quote award of the year.

 

[BatScot]

I personally don't understand why The Anti-Lazarus Pit Movement has any credible argument regarding it "not being realistic."

If you can provide us with a scientifically proven instance where a person with any significant injury—something that would normally result in death, paralysis, or a 12-24 month recovery period—had some kind of herb or ointment rubbed on them and were miraculously cured then I'll concede the point: There is no credible argument for a magical pit of resurrection goo "not being realistic".

 

[GlasgowBat]

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.

 

[Ponco_87]

anyone here wondered whether Liam Neeson would return or not? It had never been really proven that Ra's is dead in BB. Although i doubt that Nolan would go "the bad guy is still alive" route, i dunno, too convenient and cheesy for his standards.

 

[Travesty]

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."

Yes, but at the same time, Nolan wasn't the one who came up with the concept art, other artist were the ones who did that. So it's kind of a moot point.

 

[The_Raganork]

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

 

[Infinity9999x]

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.

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.

 

[Travesty]

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.

I actually think he went the make-up route, for the sake of being more realistic and grounded. Yes, he went it an extreme with Two-Face(thank god), but Two-Face doesn't feel like a more fantastical villain compared to The Joker or Ras. Ras is an immortal, and Joker is a guy who fell into a vat of chemicals, which turned him insane, gave him a permanent smile, and bleached his skin and hair, making him look like a clown. Now, I've seen burn victims in my life, but I've never encountered an immortal, or a permanent clown.

Again, I'm glad liberties were taken with Two-Face, and yes, these are still movies, so they aren't real life, but I do think the make-up was to ground Joker into a more realistic setting. That's just me, though.....

Spoiler

*waiting for the first person to say "ohhh, not the perma-white debate again", and then use this guy -->

 

[Solidus]

I've said it before too, it is the feeling of realism, and the illusion but again no films are realistic. Film itself narrates and directs people in most ways big and small that don't happen like real life. That's why people go to movies to escape, because none of them are like real life. (I guess documentaries but there is argument of how a documentary just still narrates what the director wants you to see).

All the things that in Nolan's world have a slight possibility of happening (well most of them) and just like most films the heroes do something near impossible again and again. It's film. The way it is.

But I will say that Nolan does give a sense of realism, so in the film world it works.

 

[The_Raganork]

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.

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.