The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

[The Dark Guybrush]

and the family thing... not gonna happen.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, not until the 4th movie or beyond, anyway.

 

[metalhead971]

Yeah, that's what I was picturing. A setup for the next franchise (whenever the hell that may be).

So if he's second-guessing himself in TDK, maybe in BB3 he'll be more paranoid and more prepared, the one-step-ahead Batman that we know so well from the comics. Begins gave us some of that, but not much. It looks like TDK will build on it as well, but I would hope the 3rd one would really flesh it out and make him a paranoid, intellectual crime-fighting genius.

 

[thegameq]

Something I (and others) have been saying for sometime, and it seems, with little success. The theme is escalation, it seems quite plausible the Joker (and crime, not to mention Gotham itself) will evolve similar to Batman's progression. Remember this is essentially Batman's first year on the job, things aren't that bad, just yet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, by the third film, Gotham starts to resemble a certain Tim Burton flick from 1989...

God I hope so to some degree.....put the fantasy and style back in Batman.

 

[Gianakin_]

BB had fantasy. Just because some people have understood Nolan's words wrong, doesn't mean it's true. As for style, to each his own, but I found that Nolan has a unique style that makes him recognizable- and so does BB.

 

[metalhead971]

The whole point of these three movies is to get Batman back to place where you can be more engaged in what's going on, to present a world that is more realistic so you can feel like this stuff actually happens. I think that is great because later, when the real fantastical stuff starts to happen, you're as bewildered as Batman is to find things like this going on in a REAL world (figuratively speaking). The stories involving Joker, Two-Face, and Scarecrow, to me, don't have fantastical elements. That makes them great for telling realistic Batman stories that present a complete world, and not just a comic book world.

 

[thegameq]

BB had fantasy. Just because some people have understood Nolan's words wrong, doesn't mean it's true. As for style, to each his own, but I found that Nolan has a unique style that makes him recognizable- and so does BB.

Yes, yes, but where is that iconic fantasy Batman imagery and style? ...sigh..

It's almost as if people think you can't have fantasy Batman and a good, solid serious tone at the same time; you must exclude as much fantasy as possible so that the film can be taken serious and that simply isn't true.

I think at the heart of this constant argument is quite frankly dollars. It's much safer to make a conservative film that may appeal to most, rather than risk profits with a stylized fantasy film that may or maynot appeal to everyone. Frankly, I feel that's a bs argument because audiences have proven time and time again that they love fully blown, well done fantasy films...of course there are exceptions.

Again, I understand what Nolan was going for and admit his film was very good. But as a Batman fan and overall comicbook film fan, his vision is very underwhelming and disappointing. I feel the same way about Nolan's vision for Batman as I do for Singer's vision of X-men: very underwhelming and lackluster; devoid of so much of the fantastic style and imagery that makes the source material so enjoyable in the first place.

Would a stylized fantasy Batman film bomb at the box office?

 

[Gianakin_]

It's almost as if people think you can't have fantasy Batman and a good, solid serious tone at the same time; you must exclude as much fantasy as possible so that the film can be taken serious and that simply isn't true.

That right there is the definition of "People take Nolan's words and purpose the wrong way".

Would a stylized fantasy Batman film bomb at the box office?

If it was too stylized? Yes. I saw a frame-by-frame adaptation of Year one (2 scenes of it involving Gordon". Highly stylized. Iconic. Also, crap.
Dead End: Comic accurate. Iconic to the boot. Also, MEGA-crap.
I think there are several ways to approach Batman, and they all work. Burton's worked, so did Nolan's, IMO. And so will another guy's, as long as it's of great quality. That's what matters to me: the quality of the style, not the style itself.

 

[Crook]

If it was too stylized? Yes.

Doubtful. People don't really care too much for style, as long as it's not intrusive. If anything, more visual flare would actually help this franchise.

I saw a frame-by-frame adaptation of Year one (2 scenes of it involving Gordon". Highly stylized. Iconic. Also, crap.
Dead End: Comic accurate. Iconic to the boot. Also, MEGA-crap.
I think there are several ways to approach Batman, and they all work. Burton's worked, so did Nolan's, IMO. And so will another guy's, as long as it's of great quality. That's what matters to me: the quality of the style, not the style itself.

If your comment about over stylization also applied to you, then this quote right here sorta invalidates that.

 

[metalhead971]

Whatever style you use for Gotham and Batman, it has to at least be believable. Too much style will just make it another eye-gouging view like BF and B&R were, with neon and crap everywhere. Those are perfect examples of too much style. B89 had a cool style, although when you see the skyline of Gotham City, you can clearly tell it's a comic book movie. It has that gothic, toon look to it. BB doesn't have that. It just looks like a huge ****in city.

 

[Gianakin_]

Doubtful. People don't really care too much for style, as long as it's not intrusive. If anything, more visual flare would actually help this franchise.

It's mere speculation, but I don't think a 300-style Batfilm would work. That's what I had in mind when I said "too stylized" anyway.

If your comment about over stylization also applied to you, then this quote right here sorta invalidates that.

You're actually right. It does contradict the above. But in this case, I have the above example(s): I've seen the styles, I believe they're done well (ergo good quality), but they don't work for me.
Also, what I said above is not to be taken in an absolute way. There can be and there are exceptions, in both the quality and the style type parts of my argument.

 

[Crook]

Whatever style you use for Gotham and Batman, it has to at least be believable.

Not really. Audiences don't care about it much. The look of the film is just that, something to look at. Unless it's something bothersome to the eye, it won't matter.

Too much style will just make it another eye-gouging view like BF and B&R were, with neon and crap everywhere. Those are perfect examples of too much style.

It's not what I'd prefer, but that was the least of those films' problems. BF had a hyper-stylized neon city, but that didn't stop it from being a huge blockbuster for that year.

It's mere speculation, but I don't think a 300-style Batfilm would work. That's what I had in mind when I said "too stylized" anyway.

You mean an all-cg background plating? Hard to say. 300 didn't feature much "landscape" with it's scenes, and those that did, were built in real-life.

But in terms of the gold filter, crushed blacks, and high contrasts, I don't see that having any effect on the quality of the movie, or audience perception.

 

[Gianakin_]

You mean an all-cg background plating? Hard to say. 300 didn't feature much "landscape" with it's scenes, and those that did, were built in real-life.

But in terms of the gold filter, crushed blacks, and high contrasts, I don't see that having any effect on the quality of the movie, or audience perception.

No, I actually mean the overall style of the movie, not just the aesthetical part. I'm also talking about the voiceovers, the direction etc. Note that I'm basing this to a Batman Year One fanfim, as well as the Frank Miller script from the same movie, which I didn't like at all. Now, also note that it's one example of a style out of so many, I don't want to get into the Miller-style mode alone. It's just that this is the one I had in mind when I was thinking "too stylized".
It's a style that in theory (always IMO) could work, but now that I've seen it, it doesn't for me. If you tell me of a Bat-film shot a la... I dunno, Matrix, I won't say yes or no, because I haven't seen it. I know the style, but I haven't seen it applied on Batman and his world. I hope I'm making sense to you.

 

[Crook]

No, I actually mean the overall style of the movie, not just the aesthetical part. I'm also talking about the voiceovers, the direction etc.

Well it's hard for me to really argue with that. Snyder's direction of 300, was to basically take the comic book panels, and directly translate them onto the screen. The result was a whole slew of fantastic "shots", many times they looked like "moving paintings". Considering the plethora of iconic images found in the bat-books, I can't really say that I'd be against that type of directing, lol.

As for voice-overs. I'm a huge fan of film noir. And those who watch film noir know it was a genre known for it's voice-overs. Also to add, I'm sure many batfans know that film noir would actually fit very well as a style for Batman. Again, I can't really say I'd be opposed to this as well.

Note that I'm basing this to a Batman Year One fanfim, as well as the Frank Miller script from the same movie, which I didn't like at all.

You have a link to this Y1 fan-film?

It's a style that in theory (always IMO) could work, but now that I've seen it, it doesn't for me. If you tell me of a Bat-film shot a la... I dunno, Matrix, I won't say yes or no, because I haven't seen it. I know the style, but I haven't seen it applied on Batman and his world. I hope I'm making sense to you.

Kinda. But on one hand, what are you basing your opinion of a 300-style Batman not working? It hasn't been done, and even if it has, independently by some fan, that's not remotely close to what a major motion picture studio could do with it.

 

[Gianakin_]

Here

I'm sure the studio could do better, but it gives a pretty good idea of what it can be. Plus, the actual official script, like I said before, did nothing to me. Watch it and tell me what you think.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The key point of film noir, is the play between shadow and light with heavy symbolism. BB is already too self aware to do a noir style with this particular franchise, not too mention Nolan doesn't really use any symbolism, I think a neo-noir approach would work, but we won't get one.

 

[OctaviusINC]

I really don't mind Nolan's vision of Bats. I'm just not a big fan of his Gotham city. I mean, I like the way he portrays it's citizens and inhabitants, but I just don't like that he chose Chicago as Gotham. I've lived in Chicago my whole life, 5 minutes away from downtown, and every time I see BB, I see Batman in Chicago..not Gotham. I loved Burton's Industrial Wasteland Gotham, and I thought Nolan would give us something of that manner. It's just in the comics, the make Gotham so Gothic and artistically beautiful, while in Nolans universe it's just a city. I liked when he introduced the Narrows, that made it stand apart. IDK, maybe it's b/c I live in Chicago. Just an opinion. But a monorail doesn't make it Gotham to me.

 

[CaptainClown]

I've never been to Chicago so I'm not really effected by that, it just felt like Gotham was some big city nothing too special. I can see what you mean though.

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't think that Gotham is always... well, gothic in the comics.

 

[MAKIEVELLI]

I love that Gotham was grounded in reality. It made it feel all the more real for me. That's something I have to congratulate Nolan for. Of course I find some bad things in BB, but the good far outweighs the bad IMO.

 

[Doc Samson]

One thing I will say in regards to this realism debate, is that starting with this film I do hope they bring some of the fantastical elements back to Batman, at least a little bit. That was one of the trade offs when explaining all of his back story in BB, when he finally appeared, it didn't quite feel dramatic enough, IMO. One thing I enjoyed in B89 was the mythical approach to Burton's Batman, he was like a ghost almost, a mysterious figure not just to the movie characters but even to the viewing audience as well, whereas Nolan's Batman was much more personal to the point where I didn't feel the seperation. It wasn't Batman the Dark knight anymore, it was just Bruce Wayne in a suit, which made it less of a spectacle whenever he showed up on screen, which I suppose was the point. I think for certain characters, Spiderman being one, helping the audience identify with them is essential. And I'm not saying I didn't like BB approach because its easily the best portrayal of the character to me, but certain heroes like a Batman or Superman need more of mythical god-like quality to them...

 

[CaptainClown]

I never felt like Batman had that god like quality, he was like that mortal that always tempts the fate of the gods.

 

[The Dark Guybrush]

criminals are gonna fear batman, not know if he's just a guy in a suit or some sort of urban monster.. while the crazies are gonna pull the copycat thing and emulate him by dressing up- but wreak havoc instead of fight crime.

 

[Doc Samson]

I never felt like Batman had that god like quality, he was like that mortal that always tempts the fate of the gods.

Maybe not as God-like as Superman, but certainly an urban legend as The Dark Guybrush suggested. Just to me, after breaking down every element of the Batman character into such a grounded reality, it takes away from his aura.

Not to compare the movies because I feel they both worked well for their particular interpretation, but just watch the opening appearance of Batman in B89, or even the Axis chemical scene. He was menacing without saying a word, with a wonder and awe about him, almost regal in his demeanor. Nolan tried to convey the same thing with Bale's physicality and imposing will, but with all of the back story it just seemed to lack the same impact. IDK, maybe the music had alot to do with how I feel about it, but B89 just had alot more of that mystique to the character, something I think TDK hopefully will bring back...

 

[CaptainClown]

Again it depends on the viewer. I felt 89 wasn't that much of an improvement either. If you wanted to see that mythic quality you would have to see it from the criminals point of view. You never know when he is watching. It all depends on your preference clearly you didn't care for it.