The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

[Agentsands77]

K.P.: Yes, actually it's one of the most well-known and adored villain origins of all time, Alan Moore --

B.S. It's one of the most controversial origins of all time. Divides Joker fans right down the center, and rightfully so.

 

[Ibn]

B.S. It's one of the most controversial origins of all time. Divides Joker fans right down the center, and rightfully so.

That's true. But didn't they say it was going to be influenced by TKJ? If that's the case, why make so drastic a change? What the hell else can you take away from the Killing Joke If he didn't drop into the chemicals? Also, I just have to say that I think the lazarus pit is gonna come in to play in this series. On the Begins DVD, they mention Talia and the Lazarus pit in the bio section. Which is why I strongly believe we'll see both the return of Ra's and the appearance of Talia.

 

[dude stannis]

B.S. It's one of the most controversial origins of all time. Divides Joker fans right down the center, and rightfully so.

Rightfully nothing. Joker fell into a vat of chemicals. Always has. TDK is the only Joker adaptation to deviate (Possibly) from this. Doesn't mean Nolan's wrong, doesn't mean he's right either.

 

[Rorschach II]

B.S. It's one of the most controversial origins of all time. Divides Joker fans right down the center, and rightfully so.

Perhaps adored is the wrong word, but it's a pretty big part of the character. Re-doing it would be like changing how Spider-Man gets his powers or something. You get the same end result (a psychopath dressed as a clown) but you take away some of the dynamics of the relationship and depth of the character (The Batman DID create his worst enemy) when you change the origin so drastically.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Rightfully nothing. Joker fell into a vat of chemicals. Always has. TDK is the only Joker adaptation to deviate (Possibly) from this. Doesn't mean Nolan's wrong, doesn't mean he's right either.

So, he's completely changing a pretty core element of Joker's origin, going the complete opposite of what's always been done, since 1940, but that doesn't make him wrong?

Granted, this is all contingent on him actually changing the origin, because like you said, we don't know.

 

[Rorschach II]

The thing is, Nolan made a very good origin film (which, for the record, I love) that was rather faithful to the source material and a few other good films so now the comic book crowd (and, by extension, most of the people on here) are sucking his dick big time. He can do no wrong. But I'm not one of these people. I can say with confidence that I think it is wrong to change the Joker's origin so drastically.

At this point I'm still very excited by the film, but I think my feelings towards it are as if I'm watching a cook who has never failed me before make a usually great dish I've never had this specific cook make, only he's swapping some ingredients I like for some I don't. I'm not TOO happy, but I'm still holding out hope that it'll turn out great, though I know it'll taste different than what I'm used to.

 

[dude stannis]

So, he's completely changing a pretty core element of Joker's origin, going the complete opposite of what's always been done, since 1940, but that doesn't make him wrong?

Granted, this is all contingent on him actually changing the origin, because like you said, we don't know.

Like I said, doesn't mean he's right either. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Agentsands77]

Perhaps adored is the wrong word, but it's a pretty big part of the character.

THE KILLING JOKE? Not really. It depends how you want to view the Joker. I think that making him a tragic figure is all wrong, really. Give me the supersanity theory any day.

Re-doing it would be like changing how Spider-Man gets his powers or something.

THE KILLING JOKE isn't the origin. It's just one of many different origins, including the Alex Ross/Paul Dini "Case Study" and the new Batman Confidential one. And even then, there are a lot of competing theories as to why the Joker is the way he is.

All use the chemical vat (and most of them use Batman in some role), but how they establish the character thematically is wildly different.

 

[Agentsands77]

That's true. But didn't they say it was going to be influenced by TKJ? If that's the case, why make so drastic a change? What the hell else can you take away from the Killing Joke If he didn't drop into the chemicals?

Well, all I can say is don't count the bleached skin entirely out. Yet.

Also, I just have to say that I think the lazarus pit is gonna come in to play in this series. On the Begins DVD, they mention Talia and the Lazarus pit in the bio section. Which is why I strongly believe we'll see both the return of Ra's and the appearance of Talia.

Eh, Nolan has dismissed the idea of ever wanting to do the Lazarus Pit in interviews. He left it ambiguous not to anger the fans, but he doesn't really want to tackle it. They mention it on the DVD, but only in a minor and insignificant special feature.

 

[Ibn]

Well, all I can say is don't count the bleached skin entirely out. Yet.


Eh, Nolan has dismissed the idea of ever wanting to do the Lazarus Pit in interviews. He left it ambiguous not to anger the fans, but he doesn't really want to tackle it. They mention it on the DVD, but only in a minor and insignificant special feature.

See, that's the type of **** that pisses me off. The Joker can't fall in to a vat of chemicals because it's not realistic (even though I've never seen it proved otherwise)? We can't get a Lazarus pit because it's unrealistic? But we can get a guy running around in a batsuit with the notion that he can defeat crime? I respect Nolan. And despite my skepticism, I still have faith that we'll get a bleached white Joker. But damn, that type of thing pisses me off.

 

[Ibn]

Rightfully nothing. Joker fell into a vat of chemicals. Always has. TDK is the only Joker adaptation to deviate (Possibly) from this. Doesn't mean Nolan's wrong, doesn't mean he's right either.

didn't see that part. ^Whole post is good.

 

[Slevin1087]

Interesting Debate.

 

[Bruce Banner]

I've just looked up the leaked pics on another site, and found them appalling. Hated Batman's new suit, his BB suit looks MUCH better than the playsuit monstrosity they have him wearing now. And good God, the Joker, sweet Jesus in heaven, did they f him up.

 

[daveswb]

Here's what I don't get about the "realism" debate.

People defend Nolan's changes by stating they were done for "realism".

How are any of the changes he made "realistic"?

memory fiber so batman can fly?

Driving around in a protoype tank that wayne industries built, yet no one can figure out who batman is?

I think Nolans changes actually made the movie less realistic.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, if you want realism don't watch a movie based on a comic book character.

 

[donk70]

Here's what I don't get about the "realism" debate.

People defend Nolan's changes by stating they were done for "realism".

How are any of the changes he made "realistic"?

memory fiber so batman can fly?

Driving around in a protoype tank that wayne industries built, yet no one can figure out who batman is?

I think Nolans changes actually made the movie less realistic.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, if you want realism don't watch a movie based on a comic book character.

My thoughts exactly. Well said

 

[Victarion]

I think that some people are taking the term "realism" and its use way out of context.

 

[Rorschach II]

All I'm saying is: somewhere out there, there's a Batman fan -- a REAL Batman fan -- that is also an excellent filmmaker. Somewhere out there, is the guy who would make THE Batman movie. Will we ever see his take? No. Probably not.

 

[Warhammer]

You know guys, it's not like Nolan has ever flaunted with the word "realism" or went out of his way to bring that to effect. Batman is no more of a "fantasy" than Batman Begins is.

People misinterpret "realism" and throw it way out of context.

 

[Spade]

It doesn't help that, while the film itself is great, the fans of the film love to flaunt the word seemingly for the sole purpose of annoying people who like the fantasy elements.

 

[Agentsands77]

The Joker can't fall in to a vat of chemicals because it's not realistic (even though I've never seen it proved otherwise)?

Well, Nolan never said that, so who knows.

We can't get a Lazarus pit because it's unrealistic?

Well, I'm not sure he didn't do it because it's unrealistic. He never said that was the case.

It seems to me that he didn't particularly want to use it in his interpretation of the character, I imagine, and it would take a lot of time to develop in a story that was predominately about Bruce Wayne. He said that he prefers to think of Ra's al Ghul as a magician than anything else, and so he focused on that aspect.

The idea of it is certainly no more unrealistic than the cloning machine in THE PRESTIGE (and it would be interested to see the Lazarus pit treated in the same straight-faced manner).

And despite my skepticism, I still have faith that we'll get a bleached white Joker.

I wouldn't believe too hard in that, just in case. It's entirely possible that the Joker's look is make-up, despite some reliable insider reports to the contrary. If the Joker's look is actually bleached white, there's a lot of explanation needed.

 

[Agentsands77]

You know guys, it's not like Nolan has ever flaunted with the word "realism" or went out of his way to bring that to effect. Batman is no more of a "fantasy" than Batman Begins is.

Quite right. Here's Nolan's explanation of his vision:

Nolan: I think we had a huge advantage in that the 1989 Batman film that Tim Burton did, and that tone has defined comic book movies. Because we're doing a Batman film, something new, fresh and different, they were looking for a re-invention. No one's done one of these movies in years—the closest to it, for me, is probably the 1978 Superman, [Richard] Donner's film, which had locations and shooting in New York. It had this great cast, and it treated its subject with a real degree of respect, not selling it short as just a comic book movie. To me, that's what comic books are—it sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?
BOM: It's been a disappointing year in some respects, yet your movie did well. Do you regard Batman Begins as unique?
Nolan: I do think of it as having certain unique qualities, in the sense that it's a movie I would have liked when I was a kid, and that makes it a little bit unusual in this day and age. It's the reason I made it—because I loved these movies growing up and I felt like it's been a very long time since I'd seen that type of film.
BOM: What type of film?
Nolan: Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Spy Who Loved Me, the first Star Wars. These are the films when I was seven years old that came about, and they created entire worlds that you believed in, and they had a very tactile, realistic, concrete sense of place and texture and, though they were all dealing with fantastic, outrageous material, they were all extreme exaggerations with idealistic heroes, but they had a recognizable taste and smell—we believe in the reality of what we see for two hours. We're never let off the hook, we're on that rollercoaster and we're not looking at a cartoon. I would get asked all the time about Batman as a comic book and I would say, well, it's not a comic book, it's just a movie, the way that Star Wars wasn't just science fiction and Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't just a cartoon serial.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Eh, Nolan has dismissed the idea of ever wanting to do the Lazarus Pit in interviews. He left it ambiguous not to anger the fans, but he doesn't really want to tackle it. They mention it on the DVD, but only in a minor and insignificant special feature.

Oh, I didn't know he ever actually dismissed it. But as for the DVD, the bios on there are taken from the comics. In the bio of Scarecrow it says he worked as a Professor at Gotham University and in Falcone's bio it talks about his children, who aren't even mentioned in Batman Begins.

Anyway, just watched Begins and the second disc, I only recall Nolan talking about realism twice. Once he said he wanted the film to be heightened realism, and then in another section he mentioned wanting the story to be as realistic as possible but still wanting very big action scenes.

 

[rpenguin]

So, he's completely changing a pretty core element of Joker's origin, going the complete opposite of what's always been done, since 1940, but that doesn't make him wrong?

50's*

Joker's origin wasn't an issue until the fifties when they finally explained it. At that point, it was chosen because it tied the villain to the hero's first appearance. Hardly a good origin. Unfortunately they keep grounding his origin on that.

 

[360sculptguy]

You know guys, it's not like Nolan has ever flaunted with the word "realism" or went out of his way to bring that to effect. Batman is no more of a "fantasy" than Batman Begins is.

People misinterpret "realism" and throw it way out of context.

[Lumberg] Eeeeyeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and... kind of disagree with ya there. [Lumberg]

I loved Batman 89 but it had a completely different angle than Begins. Way more kitsch, way more fantasy. Its kind of a weird comparison because you're comparing different storylines and different characters. On the spectrum of existing Batman movies it comes the closest to Begins but it's still in a different ballpark.

Joker's look is pretty comic in Batman
I'll get his obvious things out of the way. They made no attempts to look human. There was no trauma at all in his look. It was like the old coloring of a comic book. The white was one white everywhere and the green was one green everywhere. Thats fine. At least they were bold about it. Skin can be bleached by half a dozen chemicals and acids used in low concentrations but high ones will kill you. Too much chlorine can turn hair green although not permanently. If it were too strong it would literally burn it off and blister your scalp (a chemical burn more in keeping with what supposedly happens to two face). I suppose any chemicals could irritate the delicate skin of the lips and make them look red, if the skin were pink to begin with. Shy of tattooing I don't think anything can make giant permanent red lips. No chemical would alter the size of your smile but 89 incorporated the cut smile as well so they get some slack there. No chemical does all of these things.

Other things:
-Jokers joybuzzer and the instantaneous charcoal result. It wasn't even just electrocution, which could be made plausible in certain ways. The dude he shook hands with turned into a half mummified lump of charcoal instantaneously.
-Joker's six foot six shooter. Jokers punching glove gun. Both are in character but this is about the contrast with Nolan and his style in Begins. Scarecrow was distilled down to a mask and the fear toxin. I expect to maybe see Joker's acid flower. He could have the other gags if they were just the real, harmless ones. I don't see it happening though.
-the whole musical number, parade scene, joker venom balloons, and the Batwing that pulled them away. Cue the batwing in front of the moon scene.
-no reason for any of Batman's toys. Not necessarily a bad thing for that film. Not everything has to be explained, but the contrast with how Begins handled it is great.
-Batmobiles magical "shields". This was 89, right?
-The apparent lack of any real cops in Gotham (hello museum scene). Was there an explanation why they were all able to just hang out there for forever? Was it just a 'we cut the security lines so no one will bother us' explanation? or no explanation at all? It's been awhile.
-Gotham's look was very stylized. As in Burton's style. Most apparent in the final cathedral scenes. The building was a caricature of architecture. The cartoonish spotlights they used and in particular, that one scene where I think Joker looks down to the ground from the edge of the cathedral and it looks like its bad animation with the crap spotlights spinning around. I think they must have run out of money there.

Thats enough. Before anyone rips my head off I loved 89. In many respects better than Begins. The 89 "Who are you?" "I'm Batman" will be forever burned into my brain as one of the coolest moments in film. Really ushered in the wave of modern comic films, unless you consider He-man from a couple years earlier. :P Most everything in 89 worked within that film. Everything in TDK really has to work within the world of two films and eventually three. The shields thing and that crappy moment with the spotlight animation are two sore points from 89.

Nolan established a certain aesthetic in Begins and I hope he doesn't stray much further than he apparently already has. In my opinion Joker's clothes already seem to be disproportionately closer to a comic than any quality found in Begins. For 'TDK Joker' to look outlandish, which is a character trait, he did not need to look exactly like the comic. The world around him doesn't look like the comic. So in comparison to everything around him the near identical comic clothing looks fan made and out of place. Compared to some I couldn't care less about how he gets white skin. He has it and everything important that the chemical storyline contributed to the character in the comic either looks to be there or is still in the realm of possibility.

 

[Agentsands77]

In my opinion Joker's clothes already seem to be disproportionately closer to a comic than any quality found in Begins.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it strays from Nolan's visual aesthetic. Nolan's visual aesthetic doesn't mean that no images can be close to the comic, just that they have to fit a certain tonality. And the Joker's design in THE DARK KNIGHT certainly fits.

For 'TDK Joker' to look outlandish, which is a character trait, he did not need to look exactly like the comic.

Sure.

The world around him doesn't look like the comic.

Depends on which comic you're talking about.

So in comparison to everything around him the near identical comic clothing looks fan made and out of place.

Eh, I don't agree. It would if his outfit was cartoony, like many comic book elements. In that way, it wouldn't fit with the tactile sense of Nolan's universe. But it doesn't.