The "realism" thread

[KRYPTON INC.]

The Batman we want is the darker, serious version. If they were going with a goofier, more lighthearted approach like The Avengers then the grey tights would be fine. But most people don't want to see Batman taken in that direction.

After the Shumacher films, anything taking the character in that direction is going to face resistance.

Here is a question I have to ask then... Is the tone of the Marvel films from IM, through THOR, AVENGERS and IM3 actually all that "goofy" even if in comparison to Nolan's Bat films they may come across as more "lighthearted"? Is any film that would deviate from the supposed "seriousness" inherent in that approach to CBM adaptations now automatically akin to Schumacher's camp fever dreams put on screen?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yes, the Marvel Studios films are far lighter than what DC/WB has been doing lately (save the awful Green Lantern). It works for those characters, but not Batman. Batman needs to be dark and gritty.

 

[sontin]

In what sense? Because people don't die (as they have water in their bodies) or do you mean it cannot exist?

There is a difference between science fiction and nonsense.
A water vaporize machine which doesn't not vaporize water was an insult to my intelligence.

 

[Green Goblin]

Yes, the Marvel Studios films are far lighter than what DC/WB has been doing lately (save the awful Green Lantern). It works for those characters, but not Batman. Batman needs to be dark and gritty.

Even that is debatable. Batman only got dark around the 80's.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Even that is debatable. Batman only got dark around the 80's.

And it was a character defining change. There is no large audience clamoring for 50s/60s-style Batman.

 

[The Joker]

There is a difference between science fiction and nonsense.
A water vaporize machine which doesn't not vaporize water was an insult to my intelligence.

Did you miss the lines where it's explained that it uses focused microwaves to vaporize water supplies.

 

[Shikamaru]

Even that is debatable. Batman only got dark around the 80's.

That applies to everyone. The 70's and 80's were the decades when comic books became more adult. The main reason everything was so lighthearted and campy before that was due to the censorship that was enforced on comics.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Did you miss the lines where it's explained that it uses focused microwaves to vaporize water supplies.

And it's the "enemy's water supply," so this machine somehow can distinguish what water is in a body and what water is used for supply. And then the machine can decide if the water supply is from his team or the enemy. I agree with the guy whose intelligence was insulted by this. For all the explanation that was thrown to justify every single bat-gadget they could have used some for this device.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think Nolan's approach/idea to realism in superhero films is the ideal approach. That being said, I don't think he executed that idea anywhere as well as the way he described his approach in words. While the realism isn't bad, it is also incosistent. Is it terribly inconsistent? No, at least not until TDKR (IMO). But it is inconsistent nonetheless.

Some examples (note that some of these I have absolutely no problem with but i still listed them because they're inconsistent nonetheless):
-Venom drug and Joker venom are too unrealistic but Scarecrow gas isn't.
-A guy can walk around with 4th degree burns that literally get to your bone (A guy with Two-Face's corrosive burns from the comics would genuinely have higher chances of survival) but white bleached skin is unrealistic.
-Batman wears thick bulky armor despite there being many fabric light materials in real life that offer the same level of protection without weighting him down. It gets worse when you realize that Wayne's Science Division is supposed to be 10 years ahead of everyone but Batman still runs around in dated bulky armor.
-Establishing the idea that Batman can't happen in the real world. That Batman is larger-than-life as much as other superheroes are despite no powers. Going as far as to have shaky fight scenes because "No one can comprehend how Batman would fight in real life because it's not possible". Then watering down Batman's abilities and stripping him of the "world's greatest detective" title because "it's not realistic for a human to achieve that".
-Permanently crippling your protagonist's leg[/] to show what effects being Batman would have on your body. Then having him recover from a broken back through the most unprofessional & unsanitary conditions while falling from ridiculous heights over and over again. How? Because "he has the will".
-Having a Batman that's been out of the game for 8 years with no recent re-training just go and beat Bane. Even in the comics where Bruce got his back fixed with a psychic, Bruce still had to retrain his body to get in shape to be Batman again.
-Venom drug? No can do. But we'll still have him small brick walls with his bare hands anyways.

As you can see, some of those examples are cases in which the comics were more realistic than Nolan's films. That's not to say the realism in TDKT isn't good, but I can't help but get annoyed when I hear people talk about how Nolan "perfectly crafted such a realistic Batman - the most realistic of them all!" Not the case. I love many aspects of Nolan's realism such as the tone, which I think is perfect. But there is room for improvement while still including more "comic booky" stuff.

For me, the best realism is the one in which the characters are just as heightened as they're meant to be where anything is possible BUT the world around these mythos - the way people react to superhumans, the way superhumans affect the world, etc. - is just as realistic as ours or at least almost as realistic as ours.

There is no reason why you can't have a world as realistic as the Nolan films/Batman: Year One with a grounded mob while still having characters lime Clayface/Mr. Freeze present and a "Batgod" that's the world's greatest detective.

Bumping it up to the current page.

 

[Green Goblin]

That applies to everyone. The 70's and 80's were the decades when comic books became more adult. The main reason everything was so lighthearted and campy before that was due to the censorship that was enforced on comics.

I might be wrong but wasn't censorship removed in the late 80's/ early 90's? That's why Marvel where allowed to use a vampire as a Spider-Man villain.

The Death Of Gwen Stacy ended the silver age of comics and after that I think comics got a bit more dark but it was batman that underwent the most change.

 

[Shikamaru]

I might be wrong but wasn't censorship removed in the late 80's/ early 90's? That's why Marvel where allowed to use a vampire as a Spider-Man villain.

The Death Of Gwen Stacy ended the silver age of comics and after that I think comics got a bit more dark but it was batman that underwent the most change.

It was removed in the late 70's - early 80's. And Batman underwent the most change because he was a naturally dark character, unlike most other superheroes.

Also, Morbius appeared in the early 70's.

 

[weezerspider]

Even that is debatable. Batman only got dark around the 80's.

Ehh not really. The character was dark from the beginning. Bob Kane created a very dark character. Then he was made much lighter for children. The '70s/'80s dark Batman was really just bringing him back to his roots.

Realism is overrated. It's taking the film seriously. Nolan and company treated TDK trilogy just like they would treat an independent art film. They took it seriously and respected that these comic book characters could deal with real themes and issues and not be subjected to simply being a live action cartoon. Whedon agrees that A2 needs to be taken more seriously. He 's said he wants to make it more personnel. He's said he doesn't believe The Avengers is a great film, it's a great experience. He's right. There is nothing artistically appealing The Avengers, but it's greatly entertaining. A2 and the MCU can reach greater levels if they take themselves more seriously.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

And it's the "enemy's water supply," so this machine somehow can distinguish what water is in a body and what water is used for supply. And then the machine can decide if the water supply is from his team or the enemy. I agree with the guy whose intelligence was insulted by this. For all the explanation that was thrown to justify every single bat-gadget they could have used some for this device.

People are making too big a deal out of this. This type of thing is seen in every sci-fi/fantasy/spy film ever made. As far as the film goes, it is enough that it does work. It isn't any more ridiculous than Batman flying across rooftops in the tumbler (without any casualties), earlier in the film.

Heck, you can probably extend this to any film that has any sort of action whatsoever. Practically every film that has ever had a gun in it gets them wrong.

Certain things just have to be accepted in the world of film in order for them to be entertaining. Even the best films ever made, like Casablanca or The Godfather, aren't comparable to real life.

 

[roach]

People are making too big a deal out of this. This type of thing is seen in every sci-fi/fantasy/spy film ever made. As far as the film goes, it is enough that it does work. It isn't any more ridiculous than Batman flying across rooftops in the tumbler (without any casualties), earlier in the film.

Heck, you can probably extend this to any film that has any sort of action whatsoever. Practically every film that has ever had a gun in it gets them wrong.

Certain things just have to be accepted in the world of film in order for them to be entertaining. Even the best films ever made, like Casablanca or The Godfather, aren't comparable to real life.

The problem is when you introduce a world that is realistic...then everything has to be realistic. Casablanca or The Godfather didn't introduce an element towards the middle of the film that didn't fit with the rest of the film.

 

[The Joker]

And it's the "enemy's water supply," so this machine somehow can distinguish what water is in a body and what water is used for supply. And then the machine can decide if the water supply is from his team or the enemy. I agree with the guy whose intelligence was insulted by this. For all the explanation that was thrown to justify every single bat-gadget they could have used some for this device.

No, they said the device was used to vaporize enemies water supplies. In other words they use it in warfare to hit enemy camps or areas or villages or what ever. It's hardly difficult to distinguish between water in a pipe system to water in human bodies.

The point is it is used it to target specific water supplies. Hence why people were not being evaporated. It's microwaves were being focused on the Gotham water system.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The problem is when you introduce a world that is realistic...then everything has to be realistic. Casablanca or The Godfather didn't introduce an element towards the middle of the film that didn't fit with the rest of the film.

The very concept of Batman is unrealistic. And the rest of the technology introduced earlier in the film is just as bad.

If Batman Begins was truly realistic, it would have been over in five minutes as Bruce Wayne dies in a Chinese prison.

 

[roach]

The very concept of Batman is unrealistic. And the rest of the technology introduced earlier in the film is just as bad.

If Batman Begins was truly realistic, it would have been over in five minutes as Bruce Wayne dies in a Chinese prison.

Yes Batman is unrealistic but that movie gave us a somewhat-realistic look at Batman and his world.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yes Batman is unrealistic but that movie gave us a somewhat-realistic look at Batman and his world.

And advanced technology that doesn't exist is a part of that world. TDK & TDKR do the same thing. The films are consistent.

 

[Shikamaru]

The armor Batman wore was just ******ed though. In today's age, we have tons of fabric suits that offer the same level of protection the bulky armor offers. The only difference? It doesn't weigh you down and even helps you blend in the shadows better. Also creates more of a vibe that Batman is a force of nature.

So why does the "realistic" Batman still wear heavy bulky armor in the Nolan films? Especially since the Science Division is "apparently" 10 years ahead of the whole world. That always drove me nuts about the batsuit in the Nolan films.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Because it looks cooler. That's seriously the reason.

 

[Shikamaru]

No it doesn't. The black bulky armor looks really ugly IMO.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

People are making too big a deal out of this. This type of thing is seen in every sci-fi/fantasy/spy film ever made. As far as the film goes, it is enough that it does work. It isn't any more ridiculous than Batman flying across rooftops in the tumbler (without any casualties), earlier in the film.

Heck, you can probably extend this to any film that has any sort of action whatsoever. Practically every film that has ever had a gun in it gets them wrong.

Certain things just have to be accepted in the world of film in order for them to be entertaining. Even the best films ever made, like Casablanca or The Godfather, aren't comparable to real life.

Oh yes. The Tumbler on those rooftops wasn't any better either.

But this is not the usual superhero movie. Nolan made a big effort to achieve a realistic tone (which is not th same as being realistic).

Once again, for all the unnecessary explanations he had there, he could have explained the microwave emitter better. Or well, a little. If a device such as the microwave emitter, or some of the sorts had been in Godfather, it would have ruined it btw.


******************************

No, they said the device was used to vaporize enemies water supplies. In other words they use it in warfare to hit enemy camps or areas or villages or what ever. It's hardly difficult to distinguish between water in a pipe system to water in human bodies.

The point is it is used it to target specific water supplies. Hence why people were not being evaporated. It's microwaves were being focused on the Gotham water system.

And yet in the movie, the emitter wasn't directed/targeted at anything, simply turned on and moved all around the city.

I get if it were directed at Wayne Tower only, but the idea was to evaporate all the water in Gotham City.

********************************

The very concept of Batman is unrealistic. And the rest of the technology introduced earlier in the film is just as bad.

If Batman Begins was truly realistic, it would have been over in five minutes as Bruce Wayne dies in a Chinese prison.

Bruce Wayne would have been killed, sure, but then again, Nolan used half of the movie just to make believable why he wasn't.

 

[Travesty]

And yet in the movie, the emitter wasn't directed/targeted at anything, simply turned on and moved all around the city.

I get if it were directed at Wayne Tower only, but the idea was to evaporate all the water in Gotham City.

You don't know where the microwave beam was focused on. Apparently, it was focused downwards along the water line, which would make the pipes blow.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

You don't know where the microwave beam was focused on. Apparently, it was focused downwards along the water line, which would make the pipes blow.

Yes, somehow we couldn't have Batman wear his bat-gloves without knowing where they came from and why. But this emitter gets the free pass in the assumption department.