The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

[Fenrir]

Then I don't need to remind you why a Joker putting on make-up is of great controversy here.

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!

 

[Gianakin_]

In a way, you're actually right. Everything in art is a controversy. No matter how someone will do art, there will be people will always disagree on it. That's the way it is and should be.

 

[CaptainClown]

you forgot Jokers sneakers and all the segments of the Joker controversy.

I think Controversy is throwing it way out of proportion like Fenrir pointed, lets just call them arguments. Teeny minuscule arguments.

 

[Fenrir]

I think Controversy is throwing it way out of proportion like Fenrir pointed, lets just call them arguments. Teeny minuscule arguments.

If by "teeny minuscule arguments" you mean quote wars spanning pages over why Aaron Eckhart did not dye his hair for the role, then ok.

 

[CaptainClown]

well they are nerd wars that affect only the comic book population, and by comic book population I mean Batman fans

 

[Crook]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Well let's take a look...

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!

A lot of people cherish the "fantastical" aspect of the mythos, and considering how Nolan does seem to meddle these down to more "realistic" interpretations, it's a fair concern.

Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!

Regardless of their performance, they do look like pieces of sh1t.

Casting? CONTROVERSY!

Well compared to the casting of BB, which was all-star after all-star announcement, this time around might seem like a downgrade.

Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!

Hardly. That lasted a week at most.

Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!

I personally like it, but I can see why people don't like the hi-tech look. Some were lead to believe this franchise would stray away from that type of style.

Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!

It's understandable. That's one of the biggest critiques of the first film.

Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!

I don't really need to go over this one.

Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!

These go hand in hand. You always have to worry about juggling the right amount of time to develop the characters.

Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!

Downgrade no matter how you look at it.

 

[thegameq]

If this movie sucks, it wont be because the Joker didnt look right or the pod or the suit. I dont get why people shyt there pants over trivial stuff like that. Its about the script subplots and the pacing of the movie that matters. Everything else wont matter. I wish people would get over the costumes and looks. Its over-stated complacency.

The movie won't suck, Nolan is to talented for that....he'd have to make a huge misstep. It's Nolan's aproach in general is what has stirred the pot so to speak.

Again, I think the evolution into the Batman we know angle is what most are hoping for. But as Gianakin said, we really don't know...I personally doubt it.

 

[Fenrir]

Well let's take a look...


A lot of people cherish the "fantastical" aspect of the mythos, and considering how Nolan does seem to meddle these down to more "realistic" interpretations, it's a fair concern.


Regardless of their performance, they do look like pieces of sh1t.


Well compared to the casting of BB, which was all-star after all-star announcement, this time around might seem like a downgrade.


Hardly. That lasted a week at most.


I personally like it, but I can see why people don't like the hi-tech look. Some were lead to believe this franchise would stray away from that type of style.


It's understandable. That's one of the biggest critiques of the first film.


I don't really need to go over this one.


These go hand in hand. You always have to worry about juggling the right amount of time to develop the characters.


Downgrade no matter how you look at it.

Thanks for proving my point, bubby.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

When did I mention Nolan? I was referring to the individual ideas of organic webshooters and leather suits. None of those 2 alter the story in any way, hence why I said including them does nothing to the story.[/SPOILER]

I'm talking about how changes help a film though. You can use Nolan's approach as an example to justify changes. And hell, even with Spiderman the organic webshooting even though it was never canon or in the comics, it made sense to most people. If your gonna get bitten by a spider might as well develop certain DNA abilites. Where at a point now in the history of Superheroes where the adaptations provide as much about the character's history as the comics themselves. So why not?

Once again, making Joker putting on make-up doesn't achieve any of this.

Spoiler

You mean the chemical bath? So he's already putting on make-up and sh1t, and THEN gets into an accident that makes his skin a permanent image of what he was dressing himself up as?

That's beyond ******ed.

I dont see how the Joker falling into a chemical bath and he only then suddenly becomes the Joker we know overnight is a better storyline though. I think if you establish a character beforehand it gives a better coherency to the story. Like he's a pretty twisted individual beforehand and now really goes off the rails and embraces his alter ego with all the derrangement is a good origin story within itself. Just because it was never written like that, doesnt make it any less of a legitamite origin story. This is a guy who has multiple origin storys in comics and in adaptions anyway.

That's not remotely same thing. A comparative example would be the arguing of Joker wearing a black tuxedo instead of his traditional purple outfit. The make-up debate goes much deeper than a superficial cosmetic issue.

Like I said if his characterisation is like the Joker, I couldnt give a shyt how he becomes the Joker. Whether its a fail comedian turned psycho and eccentric gang leader or a lackey who's forced to don a red hood and falls in a vat of chemicals. People way too gaurded by this idea that he has to fall into chemicals to be who he is.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

And I get it, believe me, I'm just not 100% sure that in Batman 3 we'll get a full-blown fantasy-induced universe. But I can definately see it happening the way you explain it and expect it to be like that, too.

Trust me it will be fine as long as the story is good. People are really starting to over-abuse the term fantasy in relation to this story. As long as it all makes sense and ties up in a trilogy (something the last franchise didnt) it will be fine. Any reinvention should be welcomed especially with a character like Batman who has had his share of it.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

The movie won't suck, Nolan is to talented for that....he'd have to make a huge misstep. It's Nolan's aproach in general is what has stirred the pot so to speak.

Again, I think the evolution into the Batman we know angle is what most are hoping for. But as Gianakin said, we really don't know...I personally doubt it.

But then I have ask what there definition of "Fantasy" is and to what extent they feel it needs to go to get the Batman world they want?

And on top of that, what is there idealistic Batman world and narritive? Is it like the Dini/Timm one, the Burton one, the orignal Kane one, the Frank Miller one, The Scwartz/Adams/O'Neil one, the Grant Morrison one?

 

[Crook]

Thanks for proving my point, bubby.

I originally just typed out a one-sentence response, but thought, what the hell, I could drag this out.

I'm talking about how changes help a film though. You can use Nolan's approach as an example to justify changes.

That's fine. But that's now what I was talking about, or have an issue with. It's when the changes DON'T add anything to the film that I'll speak out about it.

And hell, even with Spiderman the organic webshooting even though it was never canon or in the comics, it made sense to most people. If your gonna get bitten by a spider might as well develop certain DNA abilites. Where at a point now in the history of Superheroes where the adaptations provide as much about the character's history as the comics themselves. So why not?

I didn't have that much of a problem with it. But at the same time, had Raimi gone with a science-whiz Peter who developed his own webshooters, not too many people (if any) would have complained either. Both work. It's just that one has been established in the comics.

I dont see how the Joker falling into a chemical bath and he only then suddenly becomes the Joker we know overnight is a better storyline though.

I never suggested that.

That's the one part of Joker's origin that is left unknown. I personally like to think that pre-Joker was already f---ked up in the head, and the chemical bath served as the breaking point of his psyche.

I think if you establish a character beforehand it gives a better coherency to the story. Like he's a pretty twisted individual beforehand and now really goes off the rails and embraces his alter ego with all the derrangement is a good origin story within itself. Just because it was never written like that, doesnt make it any less of a legitamite origin story. This is a guy who has multiple origin storys in comics and in adaptions anyway.

My point was if you're going to go with the chemical bath anyway, why not just do it at the right time, which is BEFORE he becomes the Joker we all know.

You don't think sh1t is stretching things waaaayyy too much if this dude gets in an accident that makes him look exactly the way he's already dressing up to be? Was this not a "realistic" franchise? If this is what happens in the film (but I doubt it) and people start praising it, I swear I'll go on a rant about the blind idiots here. I've seen way too much backpedalling this year alone.

Like I said if his characterisation is like the Joker, I couldnt give a shyt how he becomes the Joker. Whether its a fail comedian turned psycho and eccentric gang leader or a lackey who's forced to don a red hood and falls in a vat of chemicals. People way too gaurded by this idea that he has to fall into chemicals to be who he is.

That's the opposite of what the whole discussion has been about on Joker. Most people have acknowledged it's not the chemical bath that turns him completely into Joker. Nor do they care if it even appears in the film.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I dont think making him a twisted individual and then throwing him into tub is streching it. It goes with the idea of taking realism and escalating into a contemporary Bat-world. Your giving fans the infamous Joker accident but still giving the depth to the character like you wanted. It works like that.

 

[Crook]

I dont think making him a twisted individual and then throwing him into tub is streching it. It goes with the idea of taking realism and escalating into a contemporary Bat-world. Your giving fans the infamous Joker accident but still giving the depth to the character like you wanted. It works like that.

What you're describing is the current story arc in Batman: Confidential. That of which for the most part, I'm liking.

That is not my issue though. There is a difference between turning a psychotic baddie into a permawhite freak via chemical accident, and turning a psychotic baddie who puts on white makeup....into a permawhite freak via chemical accident. That is beyond redundant and contrived.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I think it works, again if the story shapes it up right, it works

 

[thegameq]

In a way, you're actually right. Everything in art is a controversy. No matter how someone will do art, there will be people will always disagree on it. That's the way it is and should be.

Absolutely! Therein lies the predicament I believe WB was in with resurrecting this franchise into a positive light.

A. Go with another stylized (artistic) interpretation of the character and risk possible failure due to the comparison and stigma to/of the overly stylized and campy Schumacher films as well as simply having audiences not "get it" or.....

B. Play it safe and take a much more conservative approach that may, hopefully, bring the character back into good standings with audiences.

Parallels to Fox's approach to the X-films could be drawn. When in doubt go conservative and play it safe.

 

[thegameq]

But then I have ask what there definition of "Fantasy" is and to what extent they feel it needs to go to get the Batman world they want?

And on top of that, what is there idealistic Batman world and narritive? Is it like the Dini/Timm one, the Burton one, the orignal Kane one, the Frank Miller one, The Scwartz/Adams/O'Neil one, the Grant Morrison one?

I could see Nolan's world metamorphosizing into a Neal Adams type of world...though I'm told Grant Morrison's vision may lend itself moreso to Nolan's take. However like all takes on the character, each borrows a bit from the previous to some extent.

Indeed, to what extent do they need to go for a fantasy Batman film and yet stay within the....set structure?....of Nolan's world, while still offering up more of the fantasy we have come to expect from Batman's universe.

.....I think it can be done....how far, how, etc.....and will it be done....?

 

[Mr. Socko]

The films aren't canon nor are they substitutes but I still dislike changes that are unnecessary.

What you're describing is the current story arc in Batman: Confidential. That of which for the most part, I'm liking.

That is not my issue though. There is a difference between turning a psychotic baddie into a permawhite freak via chemical accident, and turning a psychotic baddie who puts on white makeup....into a permawhite freak via chemical accident. That is beyond redundant and contrived.

The voice of reason speaks again.

I agree. Nolan would be foolish to add in such a contrived element of first having "Joker," a mass murdering maniac who wears makeup, then have him bleached. There's absolutely no point to it. The chemical bath is suppose to serve as a turning point and has been that way in every version. Even in the versions where he is a killer before the chemical bath, it is what makes him the insane lunatic with a penchant for flamboyancy. If he's already THE JOKER before the chemicals, what in blue hell would a chemical bath later serve a purpose of? Absolutely nothing.

It just becomes lame and contrived. A man who wants to look like a clown and wears white makeup is conveniently bleached white...yeah...He's either perma-white or he's not. I would be fine with either, but throwing them both in would be a terrible mistake.

 

[BubbaGump]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!

Is it weird that I have little or no problem with the issues you brought up? In fact, I like Joker's look, I like Nolan's "realism", I like the new batsuit. To me, these are trivial things and I don't dwell on them (though I will discuss them if the topic interests me).

What you have to understand is that we're bored, and we tend to over-analyze things to death here. The batboards haven't gotten any news recently, so we're all jumpy and eager for something...ANYTHING!

And what is there to discuss? We only know bits and pieces about the story of TDK so we have only a couple of those threads. One or two for the psychology of the movie, etc. So for now, everyone's just nit-picking what we DO HAVE--which is the new batsuit, the look of the Joker, the Bat-pod, etc. etc. We're that bored. Nothing anyone--any movie--can give us will make everyone happy.

This the Hype. No one is content with anything. Fact.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

The films aren't canon nor are they substitutes but I still dislike changes that are unnecessary.



The voice of reason speaks again.

I agree. Nolan would be foolish to add in such a contrived element of first having "Joker," a mass murdering maniac who wears makeup, then have him bleached. There's absolutely no point to it. The chemical bath is suppose to serve as a turning point and has been that way in every version. Even in the versions where he is a killer before the chemical bath, it is what makes him the insane lunatic with a penchant for flamboyancy. If he's already THE JOKER before the chemicals, what in blue hell would a chemical bath later serve a purpose of? Absolutely nothing.

It just becomes lame and contrived. A man who wants to look like a clown and wears white makeup is conveniently bleached white...yeah...He's either perma-white or he's not. I would be fine with either, but throwing them both in would be a terrible mistake.

He's a twisted criminal before the bath, the chemical accident leads to him snapping and also gaining a greater obsession for Batman, for scarring him. I explained how I think it can work and it plays.

 

[Luchastyle]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!

who has a problem with bale's asscrack!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Gianakin_]

Like Joker said in Batman Beyond- Return of the Joker: Batfart!!!

 

[Arkard]

Realism shmism. Begins was far away from realistic.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Still a classic though

 

[terry78]

What it boils down to is, most of the supervillains we've grown up with all became evil because of some weird ass accident. Granted, they were probably already ****ed up from the get go, but the creators made them out to be totally normal, which they kind of used as a scare tactic like "this could happen to anyone."