The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

I understand what you're saying. But taking something seriously (and I agree Nolan does that) doesn't make it "realistic".

But you couldn't be more wrong about David Lynch: his movies are not about style, but substance.

He has more substance in two seconds of footage than all our supermovies together. His deep questions of what is reality, what is identity are among the greatest recent contributions to art. :cwink:

Anyway: I just feel the debate about "realistic" features in this particular genre are a bit out of proportion. Sometimes it seems the characters must be toned down to become acceptable; or to be easier to explain.

The Joker, for instance: in the comic books, he is not a freak with a giant scar, nor has he such a long and dirty hair. He is a pretty sharp dresser.

The meaning: he is a kind of dandy clown, who has a freakish murderer inside. Remember the shooting scene in The Killing Joke. It creates a short circuit seeing a clown in Summer clothes to be so perverted.

This movie version breaks it, perhaps too much: he is scary-looking, not a clown at all. And not for "realism", mind you. But to make obvious what is, in the original version, a suggestion.:joker:

i think the joker looks more clownish than his typical comic book self. exaggerated makeup, flashy but trashy clothing, even the stringy hair.

i do, however, completely agree about david lynch. more substance than most filmakers have in their pinky finger. and style too. definately one of the great artists of our time.
 
Words like "grounded", "Logical" and "realistic" don't mean that they are taking out the fantasy of the films, it just means they want to apply them to real world settings and explanations. When it all comes down to it, BB was still about a guy dressed like a bat fighting ninjas, a scarecrow, and a guy who had a microwave emitter that could vaporize water in pipes, but not water in people. He had a car that flew on roof tops, he could shoot a grappling hook at a speeding train, he could call bats to him with a device in his boot, etc.

I swear some people seem to think Nolan is making documentaries.
 
i think the joker looks more clownish than his typical comic book self. exaggerated makeup, flashy but trashy clothing, even the stringy hair.

i do, however, completely agree about david lynch. more substance than most filmakers have in their pinky finger. and style too. definately one of the great artists of our time.


Only thing I admit about Lynch is he has a very wild imagination and I'll also call him an artist I guess. Other than that I think he tries to hard. Everyone of his films has to have all this weird **** in it, so you can try and figure out what all the metaphors mean. I think other filmmakers who have thought provoking films like his do it better since it's not over the top with weird midgets who talk backwards and a lady with a messed up facing dancing on falling sperm(eraserhead).
 
You complain about weird stuff and has a weirdo in purple outfit, bleached face and big scarred lipstick lips clown prince of crime as your avatar. :woot:

I think the point with Lynch is that his characters in general are in a sort of half way through dream and reality, but in such a way that sometimes you can't cut clean between the two.

Well, at least in Mulholland Drive you can do that. It's not that far-fetched. Hollywood real lives can be that strange and scary. :oldrazz:
 
I don't think that's the same. Visual aesthetic ties into the tone, but it's something on it's own.

I'll just leave it there then.


Firstly, because such a distillation didn't entirely undermine the character of Scarecrow. It would entirely undermine the Joker. Not to mention there was no real time for Scarecrow to assemble an actual costume in BEGINS (though it seems he won't have enhanced his look in THE DARK KNIGHT).

Scarecrow had all the time in the world to pick whatever costume Nolan thought was fitting. Batman put together his entire deal in the same time. That's separate from the fact that the distilling of his visuals is possible because of the advantages of the film performance. A similar treatment of Joker would have been fitting. Admittedly, he has a number of elements to consider but from what we see there has not been a single visual from the comic left unreferenced. That is out of place.


Yes. But the Joker is meant to be extraordinary even among the rogue's gallery. Now in the comics, that's only been an abstract concept, since all the rogues are so colorful. But now Nolan can make a visual distinction as well, which even further ties into the theme of "escalation" - theatricality gone wild.

Extraordinary looking among the rogue's gallery? In his words, in his sense of humor, in his actions, and in his capacity for brutality, yes. In his look, no. His IBIHDT face already made the star villain extraordinary in a fitting way. His face, one's identity, already looked extraordinary. That face on Gotham News would have had impact. The comic wrapper tells you nothing more about the character. At the showdown throw in a purple shirt for the reference, a battered suit coat, maybe a green flower on the lapel and let the actor and the film show you the rest. It has always been Joker's actions that separate him from the other villains.

Regardless of what clothes Joker wears I imagine Scarecrow will look like a run of the mill street punk by the end of TDK.


And lest we forget, Nolan has made quite a few adjustments to the Joker's look.
Nothing has been excluded though, has it?. The few adjustments made are only important in how the look came to be. I'm assuming you mean the issues with his face. The scar, the facepaint, and the lipstick? It still equals the smile, the white skin, and the red lips from the comic look. The clothing is virtually identical.

The visual look has to be informed by the character. What would this character really wear, if he was looking at a closet? Well, Scarecrow's not necessarily going to pick out a really extravagant costume, especially given the background he was in BEGINS.

But Joker? He's probably going to pick up a bunch of vintage clothing, in order to accentuate his clown-like look.

For the sake of argument I'll point out that I think we are going to see a guy giving such a true depiction of a psychotic breakdown that making the effort of assembling such elaborate duds would be beyond him.

Again, I have no problem with Joker's accouterments in the comic. I think they make for great stuff. I just don't think they fit in this film. The power of that laugh on film is going to tell you so much more than a few hahahas scribbled in the background of a frame. Stuff like that can take the place of insanely colored clothes and joybuzzers.

Nice detail. I didn't know that. Makes me love it even more. Seems the Joker's knowledgable about clown history.
I think it's great as well. If it were in a different movie.

What changes it for me from cartoony to realistic is the quality. These look like real clothes that you could find in a thrift shop or elsewhere. The B89 Joker clothes looked like reject piles from a high school musical or something of the sort.
Bah. You could spend a year in thrift shops and never find anything even close to this hideousness. Let alone with the matching hideousness.

I don't understand what 360sculptguy is even arguing. That Joker shouldn't wear bright colors because everyone else has subdued costumes? I may have expected something a little less garish than the usual Joker from Nolan, but how does his costume stray from the world exactly?

Joker's the perfect candidate for something apart from everything else. While the other villains are content to hide their schemes, Joker is trying to make a vivid public statement in front of Gotham

I've said it a number of ways but I'll try another one. Some will say Joker needs all the crazy clothes to reinforce his clown obsession. His clothes don't show a clown obsession, if anything they just show a preference for purple. They aren't polka dotted with a big frilly collar and giant red shoes. They are just suits, that are purple. His face was what gave birth to the clown obsession. That was in his mind. Played out in his cheap gags and warped sense of humor. The face and the physical change forced on it dictates everything else about him. I expected everything else to be reduced to a subtle nod. I expected, like with the scarecrow, that the visual source of Joker's power, the symbol of the moment his insanity exploded, his traumatized face, would be the prominent visual in Nolan's world. I didn't expect all the unnecessaries. Scarecrow was reduced to the mask that is empowered only by the fears of his victims.

I think we are getting the usual Joker in characterization. It is the inclusion of every visual gimmick from a different artform that will prove to be heavy handed, redundant, and not in keeping with the paired down aesthetic of the previous film.

Never said that he stood out because of color, in what way they stand out doesn't matter, they're not supposed to be consistent with the rest of the world

I think what way Joker stands out is very important. Thats half my point. His look in the comic isn't that unusual when you start looking at the breadth of other villains. It has always been his brand of humor, his enjoyment of brutality, his intelligence, and his psychotic obsession with Batman that have given him prominence as the arch-nemesis. It isn't his friggin coat. Why then should it be such a big deal to remove those unessential visual elements to keep consistent with Begins.
 
I've said it a number of ways but I'll try another one. Some will say Joker needs all the crazy clothes to reinforce his clown obsession. His clothes don't show a clown obsession, if anything they just show a preference for purple. They aren't polka dotted with a big frilly collar and giant red shoes. They are just suits, that are purple. His face was what gave birth to the clown obsession. That was in his mind. Played out in his cheap gags and warped sense of humor. The face and the physical change forced on it dictates everything else about him. I expected everything else to be reduced to a subtle nod. I expected, like with the scarecrow, that the visual source of Joker's power, the symbol of the moment his insanity exploded, his traumatized face, would be the prominent visual in Nolan's world. I didn't expect all the unnecessaries. Scarecrow was reduced to the mask that is empowered only by the fears of his victims.

I think we are getting the usual Joker in characterization. It is the inclusion of every visual gimmick from a different artform that will prove to be heavy handed, redundant, and not in keeping with the paired down aesthetic of the previous film.

I think what way Joker stands out is very important. Thats half my point. His look in the comic isn't that unusual when you start looking at the breadth of other villains. It has always been his brand of humor, his enjoyment of brutality, his intelligence, and his psychotic obsession with Batman that have given him prominence as the arch-nemesis. It isn't his friggin coat. Why then should it be such a big deal to remove those unessential visual elements to keep consistent with Begins.

So you want Joker to look bland because every villain in Begins was bland? I'm sure we'll get all those Joker attributes but he's going for maximum impact with the people of Gotham, not understatement. While the villains so far were content with executing their plans behind the scenes, Joker isn't going for subtle, he wants to be centerstage in the mind and TV screens of Gotham
 
Scarecrow had all the time in the world to pick whatever costume Nolan thought was fitting.
Immediately after he gets turned into Scarecrow, he's locked up. And then immediately after that is the whole Narrows scene. Not a lot of time to pick an all-out Scarecrow outfit.

Nothing has been excluded though, has it?. The few adjustments made are only important in how the look came to be. I'm assuming you mean the issues with his face. The scar, the facepaint, and the lipstick? It still equals the smile, the white skin, and the red lips from the comic look.
Yes, but they're the same elements presented in an altogether new way. The look does not have the same tone that the comic book look did.

For the sake of argument I'll point out that I think we are going to see a guy giving such a true depiction of a psychotic breakdown that making the effort of assembling such elaborate duds would be beyond him.
The Joker isn't a product of standard insanity (it's fair to debate whether or not he's insane, period), so that argument falters.

Bah. You could spend a year in thrift shops and never find anything even close to this hideousness. Let alone with the matching hideousness.
Actually, I've seen a few outfits like that in shops at the mall.

His look in the comic isn't that unusual when you start looking at the breadth of other villains.
Indeed. But now, because Nolan has scaled back the visual look of the universe, he has the ability to make the Joker stand out for the first time.

Why then should it be such a big deal to remove those unessential visual elements to keep consistent with Begins.
Because this *isn't* BEGINS. BEGINS was normalcy, and THE DARK KNIGHT is the tip towards more theatricality and the city sinks into supervillainy as the mob is kicked out. Therefore, it makes sense that the characters would also continue to increase in their visual extravagance as well as their personal extravagance. Especially with the Joker, since he's the king of supervillains.

It's like YEAR ONE and its sequels. YEAR ONE was as gritty, visually, as any Batman story ever told. Really subdued. But it's the starting point. As the story progresses, you expect more and more changes visually as the face of Gotham City changed, as things descended more and more into weirdness.
 
The whole point of Nolan wanting things to be realisic is to let viewers FEEL that Gotham can exist.

In Tim Burton movies, sure we HAVE a gotham. But would we believe that this world is 'real'? That the city is really supposed to be a city and NOT a playground for Batman and the villians?

Tim's films always make Gotham well...look small. Like it is only a soundstage and NOTHING more. It's like Gotham is the only city in batman's world.

With Chris begins, what we see is a gotham that is CONNECTED to rest of the world. Sure, in comics gotham connects to rest of the world via series like the JLA, but this film is about Batman, not Justice League.

Moreover, Nolan's gotham can actually make us believe that this gotham serve as a city primary, not simply a background for Batman. And the city FEELS like a real city, which is huge.

The previous films make us think that several location in the films serve only as an act of plot, and is there only for the plot. Nolan's gotham make us think that even if some places was not shown, several places which are not shown in earlier films are ALWAYS there all along.

Burton's Gotham can make me feel depressed, as in the 'world' seem so small and cannot be expanded in a sense.

It's like a PC game, after you completed a game that has free roam, the city does not feel THAT much like a city anymore, because it is limited by the amount of stuff that has been created.

We don't see places beyond the game, or new stuff building up by the end of the game usually.


Now compare it to a MMO, which simply seem more real because of REAL interaction with other real people, real people walking, talking and building real things. Every action they do serve a purpose and has a real reason for doing so. They want to achieve something, as compared to a NPC, who's only goal is to fill the empty screen with some movement.



That's why Nolan show the entire production crew blade runner and tell us that he want a 'realisitc' world, where things COULD serve a purpose and the world is MORE than what the screen shows. That is the realisim he was talking about.


Not TOO fantasy, but NOT too realistic either.
 
The whole point of Nolan wanting things to be realistic is to let viewers FEEL that Gotham can exist.
That's fine, but it starts to become a burden once you tread into the fantasy territory that the Batman mythology does have. I didn't think it'd be a big deal, but apparently Joker falls into this line.

Not TOO fantasy, but NOT too realistic either.
We'll see. If Joker ends up not having permawhite, then that tells me Nolan's afraid of adapting the more fantastical aspects of the mythos.

Perhaps I should've seen this, with completely excluding Ra's immortality, but eh. Nothing wrong with grounding the characters, but when "realism" becomes a restriction, then there's a problem.
 
Actually the Joker's outfit was a little surprising to me as well, seeing that Nolan changed his face toward a more realistic approach, I figured his clothing would be more rag-tag as well. But honestly, it looks almost just like anything he'd wear in the comic. To me, if the point was to make the Joker different this tiime, and more "real", then why not go all the way with it? Besides the face, the Joker isn't all that different visually as much as we were lead to believe he might be...
 
To me, if the point was to make the Joker different this tiime, and more "real", then why not go all the way with it? Besides the face, the Joker isn't all that different visually as much as we were lead to believe he might be...
Because different does not equate to opposite? People here seem to think that because visual elements remain the same, it means re-treading old ground.

Which I find hilarious, considering film consists of visuals AND writing. You alter one of those enough, and the other point isn't even an issue anymore. The changes will be apparent.
 
Because different does not equate to opposite? People here seem to think that because visual elements remain the same, it means re-treading old ground.

Which I find hilarious, considering film consists of visuals AND writing. You alter one of those enough, and the other point isn't even an issue anymore. The changes will be apparent.

I'm not disagreeing with that, however if he made the choice to change the Joker's face in order to deliver a realistic approach, then why give him the comic book clothing? I actually like the look personally, I was just lead to believe his clothing would be more in line with his face and be a completely different look. Give Ledger the regular face and its the Joker straight from the comics, not all that different or opposite at all, which is curious because there were talks of his clothing being somewhat of a departure as well.

Which makes the whole argument back and forth people are having kind of ridiculous. Claiming that his face is making him so unrecognizable is kinda weird, because everything else about him is almost exact to the funnybooks.
He's not running around in a black trenchcoat with gray jeans on, he's just as outrageous as we'd expect, purple and all...
 
Words like "grounded", "Logical" and "realistic" don't mean that they are taking out the fantasy of the films, it just means they want to apply them to real world settings and explanations. When it all comes down to it, BB was still about a guy dressed like a bat fighting ninjas, a scarecrow, and a guy who had a microwave emitter that could vaporize water in pipes, but not water in people. He had a car that flew on roof tops, he could shoot a grappling hook at a speeding train, he could call bats to him with a device in his boot, etc.

I swear some people seem to think Nolan is making documentaries.

Yeah man.
This is the truth, the only truth.
 
I've said it a number of ways but I'll try another one. Some will say Joker needs all the crazy clothes to reinforce his clown obsession. His clothes don't show a clown obsession, if anything they just show a preference for purple. They aren't polka dotted with a big frilly collar and giant red shoes. They are just suits, that are purple. His face was what gave birth to the clown obsession. That was in his mind. Played out in his cheap gags and warped sense of humor. The face and the physical change forced on it dictates everything else about him. I expected everything else to be reduced to a subtle nod. I expected, like with the scarecrow, that the visual source of Joker's power, the symbol of the moment his insanity exploded, his traumatized face, would be the prominent visual in Nolan's world. I didn't expect all the unnecessaries. Scarecrow was reduced to the mask that is empowered only by the fears of his victims.

I think we are getting the usual Joker in characterization. It is the inclusion of every visual gimmick from a different artform that will prove to be heavy handed, redundant, and not in keeping with the paired down aesthetic of the previous film.

I think what way Joker stands out is very important. Thats half my point. His look in the comic isn't that unusual when you start looking at the breadth of other villains. It has always been his brand of humor, his enjoyment of brutality, his intelligence, and his psychotic obsession with Batman that have given him prominence as the arch-nemesis. It isn't his friggin coat. Why then should it be such a big deal to remove those unessential visual elements to keep consistent with Begins.

So you want Joker to look bland because every villain in Begins was bland? I'm sure we'll get all those Joker attributes but he's going for maximum impact with the people of Gotham, not understatement. While the villains so far were content with executing their plans behind the scenes, Joker isn't going for subtle, he wants to be centerstage in the mind and TV screens of Gotham

On the contrary I said earlier I welcomed the IBIHDT pic. It is the source of all motivation for the character. I don't think Joe Schmo Gothamite from Batman Begins sees a news story about ten murders with that face in the window and thinks "bland" or "understated". If he were wearing outlandish purple clothes I don't feel that would be any different. His crimes and his words keep him centerstage more than aything else.

The following is just my opinion but I'm yet to hear anything that makes me think that may be out of line.

Q: Does comic book Joker look particularly unique when compared to his fellow comic book villains?
A: No

Q: Do I think his actions make him unique among other comic villains?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the villains in Batman Begins look bland when compared to their comic book counterparts?
A: Yes.

Q: Do I think film Joker should look bland when compared to his comic book counterpart?
A: Yes.

Q: Do I think film Joker's clothes will have anything to do with the public's persistent fear of him?
A: No.

Q: Do I think film Joker's actions will have everything to do with the public's persistent fear of him?
A: Yes.

As I said before, I've never felt Joker's clothes look like a clown. They are just purple. I'm not anti-purple. There are many shades of purple and I would have found something subdued more fitting. There are degrees in which film Joker's look could still fit within our aesthetic and differentiate himself from other villains. The only reason that makes sense for doing that is his popularity within the series. I don't feel it's necessary nor does it add anything particularly positive to the film characterization. A purple shirt would have been best, a jacket would've been fine. Both being purple is a bit much. Purple pants completely jump the shark. Shirt, coat, pants, gloves, and socks all together I never would have thought possible. I think strong greens or purples could have only showed up in gloves, ties, hats, scarves, suspenders, or some combination there of and it could have worked brilliantly. Just an opinion. Everyone has one as they say.

I think this is the first time I had any kind of discussion on here that wasn't cut off by four pages of name calling. I don't have a whole lot more to say and I'm running out of ways to expound on what I already put out there. I really do understand the desire to see something more comic like. Everyone makes good points, I just think they all have counterpoints. I'd probably equally enjoy arguing for why Joker's look in TDK is fitting for Nolan's world. It just wouldn't be sincere. :P
 
Immediately after he gets turned into Scarecrow, he's locked up. And then immediately after that is the whole Narrows scene. Not a lot of time to pick an all-out Scarecrow outfit.

I understand the character to have been Scarecrow long before Begins. He was already doubling as the Scarecrow when we first met him. I don't think having his own gas turned on him signaled the creation of Scarecrow. From TDK pics he still has just the same suit and mask.

I think the fear toxin scene towards the end of Begins, with him rising up on the horse, is a reference to his Sleepy Hollow/Headless Horsemen/Ichabod Crane roots. I like the visual anyway.

Yes, but they're the same elements presented in an altogether new way. The look does not have the same tone that the comic book look did.
the aesthetic vs tone argument is going nowhere for me.

The Joker isn't a product of standard insanity (it's fair to debate whether or not he's insane, period), so that argument falters.

That might be if you are only considering the comic book. Quite frankly, that line is just a product of comics marketing. "He isn't crazy he is super sane." Thats fine. Thats the comic. I don't think Joker's insanity will be vague in TDK. Crazy as a ****house rat.

Actually, I've seen a few outfits like that in shops at the mall.
Uhh... yikes?

Indeed. But now, because Nolan has scaled back the visual look of the universe, he has the ability to make the Joker stand out for the first time.
Yes. What we're seeing does stand out.
 
LOTR is 100% fantasy. but it was not dumb fantasy. it was a more realistic approach IMO. the same with king kong.
 
I never got into LOTR, too much like a game to me.

Same as King Kong, all that CGI makes me think I'm in a game of some sort.
 
It's a shame when a 1993 movie has better T-Rex CG than a 2005 movie. Not that the CG was KK's biggest problem. And people dubbed this a classic.... What has cinema sunk into?
 
It's a shame when a 1993 movie has better T-Rex CG than a 2005 movie. Not that the CG was KK's biggest problem. And people dubbed this a classic.... What has cinema sunk into?


Uhh, Kong was awesome.
 
Disagree to that as well. Your opinion counts more than anyone's when it comes to you.
 
Not to the majority of the film audience. It's the majority views that counts.

yeah, who cares if YOU like the movie, its what everyone else thinks that counts.:whatever:

Besides, Kong had good reviews with the critics, and it didn't bomb (although it didn't do as well as expected either).
 
yeah, who cares if YOU like the movie, its what everyone else thinks that counts.:whatever:

Besides, Kong had good reviews with the critics, and it didn't bomb (although it didn't do as well as expected either).

A box office success is important to films like the first of the the series.

Moreover, a box office gross, especially to a heavily marketed film will usually give us a indication on how most people viewed the film. A good word of mouth or a bad one.

Also, who give a damn about critics nowadays anyway? From box office gross, I guess we DO have a clear indication on how the public view POTC and how the critics viewed it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"