The Dark Knight The Realism Debate thread

[wikum]

Okay...,do you think such an approach on film could work for Batman, without limiting the characters appeal to general audiences?

.

Of course it could.

 

[Mercurius]

Realism (or in this girtty/grown up tone) works and its the contemporary for the quality within the genre now

Naaah..."realism" is a key word for comic book fans feel comfortable & safe watching fantasy in the silver screen.

Nothing more than that.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Naaah..."realism" is a key word for comic book fans feel comfortable & safe watching fantasy in the silver screen.

Nothing more than that.

Well if it brings Classics like Batman Begins, then its all good calling it that.

 

[thegameq]

Realism (or in this girtty/grown up tone) works and its the contemporary for the quality within the genre now

By genre you mean comicbook films in general? If so the Spider-man films would greatly disagree. If you mean in terms of Batman on film, yes and no. Batman on film could still be very fantasy driven yet maintain the gritty grown up tone you speak of.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

By genre you mean comicbook films in general? If so the Spider-man films would greatly disagree. If you mean in terms of Batman on film, yes and no. Batman on film could still be very fantasy driven yet maintain the gritty grown up tone you speak of.

yeah by that genre.

Look where that franchise has gone real quick. I'm defintly inclined to say Spider-Man is the best Superhero franchise but it has had a large amount of critics comparativley speaking. The Spider-man 2 vs. BB debate is intresting within itself cause it really seperates comic book fans from regular film fans. Even I, as a Begins fan was suprised how many Marvel fans gave Begins its props over SM2 the summer it came out, cause I thought Spidey had something for everybody, but it shows you that fans want that "No BS, grit" aspect in these films (or probably had issues with Maguire and Dunst. I mean I didnt). Its almost like that serious tone speaks to those fans, you know?

 

[DeaDheaD]

A lot of things went right for Spiderman though, the cast was able to stay together, and it they kept the same director and producer, SM3 was forgettable though.

 

[terry78]

I'm sure if they ever do that live action Birdman movie they'll want a scene where his wings get ripped out in bloody clumps. For gritty's sake, of course.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

A lot of things went right for Spiderman though, the cast was able to stay together, and it they kept the same director and producer, SM3 was forgettable though.

kinda offsets the point but like I said even with the mistakes of that 3rd one, it JUST ( I mean Just barely) became the first Comic Book franchise with 3 good movies. I think Nolan can pull that off too, but a lot is riding on TDK and I dont know if its the slam dunk that many people think it is just yet. Like the same people who liked BB because it delivered on a high standard of storytelling may hate TDK for the seemingly heavy plotline.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I'm sure if they ever do that live action Birdman movie they'll want a scene where his wings get ripped out in bloody clumps. For gritty's sake, of course.

C'mon duke, realism, grittiness, whatever you wanna call it...it works for Batman and credit to Nolan to making people buy it.

I think that's more a tribute to the character of Batman and its appeal though. He seems like he has pretty straightfoward iconism but there so many inerpretations that all have there fans ( From comics with Miller, Adams, Schwartz, Morrison to the animated with Dini, to the 60's with West, to Burton, to Nolan). Not too many characters survive this long being different, so it works if the story is good at the end of the day. And its good like a Reggie Bush TD.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Its not realism(although Nolan says that) its more like taking a comic-book hero serious, treating it with respect. Nolan said he wanted to give Batman the epic-movie treatment that it deserved.

 

[Figs]

yeah by that genre.

Look where that franchise has gone real quick. I'm defintly inclined to say Spider-Man is the best Superhero franchise but it has had a large amount of critics comparativley speaking. The Spider-man 2 vs. BB debate is intresting within itself cause it really seperates comic book fans from regular film fans. Even I, as a Begins fan was suprised how many Marvel fans gave Begins its props over SM2 the summer it came out, cause I thought Spidey had something for everybody, but it shows you that fans want that "No BS, grit" aspect in these films (or probably had issues with Maguire and Dunst. I mean I didnt). Its almost like that serious tone speaks to those fans, you know?

That's what I think the main thing is. Me personally as a comic fan want these properties treated with respect and maturity when being made into a film. I don't want them to drop all fantasy elements or anything like that but by treating them with respect I mean not making them hokey like Schumacker did who only saw comics as cheesy kids stuff obviously.

I'm one of the believers that you can use characters like Clayface and Killer Croc in a serious manner, we just need the right writer and a great director with vision and a passion for the characters. I love Nolan's take on Batman, I don't think he would use villians like that obviously. If he were to use them though I think he could be one of the few to make them acceptable without being super cheesy. I Love how he does treat the character with respect, in terms of not giving him campy lines and flashy bright costumes and whatnot.

Its not realism(although Nolan says that) its more like taking a comic-book hero serious, treating it with respect. Nolan said he wanted to give Batman the epic-movie treatment that it deserved.

Exactly!

 

[terry78]

It's a difficult road to tread, because to be honest, the source material is about as unrealistic as it can get. Part of me respects the gritty take, but I would like to see a Clayface or Scarface in live action one day, and don't know if those would fit with what he's doing. And I mean a full blown Clayface, not just a shapeshifter.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Well that's basically it, I call it realism cause....well that's what everyone calls it. If the French call it a certain Je ne C'est Que (sp frogs?) its that too lol but what I find really great about the whole world that Nolan sets it in is it seems like a mature/real world and it slowly is developing into the Gotham of the comics. Of course done by his own way

 

[DeaDheaD]

Exactly!

Indeed......also if he wanted to be completely realistic Nolan would have

Spoiler

The FG beating the crap out of Flass.

t:

 

[Figs]

Indeed......also if he wanted to be completely realistic Nolan would have

Spoiler

The FG beating the crap out of Flass.

t:

Wait, whats

Spoiler

FG

?

 

[DeaDheaD]

Wait, whats

Spoiler

FG

?

Spoiler

Fallafel Guy

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Falafel Guy....

 

[terry78]

I know i wasn't the only one thinking of Peter Griffin.

 

[Mr. Socko]

In the commentary for Batman '89, Burton said when he directed the film he took it in a serious approach, he wanted it to be realistic, and his EXACT words were wanting "heightened realism." Fast forward several years later, Chris Nolan is now directing Batman films, he describes his vision as a realistic take on Batman and used the same exact words, "heightened realism."

They both delivered two completely different takes on the same characters. What one may depict as 'realistic' may be very different from another's depiction.

 

[Figs]

Spoiler

Fallafel Guy

*Crys*

Of all the things I wouldn't have gotten...................how could I have not picked up on that one!!

 

[terry78]

Burton's realism is different from everyone's version of realism. He wanted to take Batman away from the goofy 1960's Adam West basically. Which he did, and we should all thank him for that.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

In the commentary for Batman '89, Burton said when he directed the film he took it in a serious approach, he wanted it to be realistic, and his EXACT words were wanting "heightened realism." Fast forward several years later, Chris Nolan is now directing Batman films, he describes his vision as a realistic take on Batman and used the same exact words, "heightened realism."

They both delivered two completely different takes on the same characters. What one may depict as 'realistic' may be very different from another's depiction.

What's real in a movie in 89 is different in 05 I guess. Plus we didnt really have a lot of comic book movies like we do now so I suppose Tim could pioneer and set the rules for what's real, what's fantasy, etc. As what happens in any evolution of art, Chris rewrote it 17 years later.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Falafel Guy....

Yea, his role is the most mysterious.....dont know how Nolan will develope that character............

Spoiler

 

[DeaDheaD]

Burton's realism is different from everyone's version of realism. He wanted to take Batman away from the goofy 1960's Adam West basically. Which he did, and we should all thank him for that.

Burton did to West, what Nolan did to Schumacher.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Well he has kids.....and they dont like Falefel appearntly.