The "realism" thread

Because at no time did Frank Miller say his universe doesnt include superheroes or Robin or Mr Freeze...
With all due respect to any creator/writer of a given project... none of what they say matters if it is not reflected in their works. Future stories are not governed by intent, rather influenced by the material that's already present.

I have no problem imagining Robin or Freeze in a Nolan franchise, because I know for a fact that with enough tweaks and creative thought that they are adaptable. Nolan can say it wouldn't work, but I'm sure even he knows it's more about him not wanting to do them in the first place as opposed to constructing a feasible means of working them into his world.
 
That's right. A piece of art can extend beyond its authorial intent.
 
Erm...what?? I want you to clarify this. Y1 is about as gritty and down-to-earth as a Batman can story can ever get. Nolan's films have been grounded, but they featured tons more of comic book spectacle and illustrious characters.

How in the world are Nolan's films drawing that firm line, but somehow Y1 isn't?

Idk... Year 1 was gritty but still pretty stylistic. Gotham City was stylistic, Batman wore spandex, and took out heaps of Swat members. Had Ra's Al Ghul been in Year 1, I could easily see the character being portrayed as immortal. Begins was a very similar feel but in their case, Nolan wanted a more grounded and mortal Ra's Al Ghul.

But I have stated my opinion before. I love my comic book elements piled on high, but I think Nolan is brilliant in what he does. I'm enjoying every moment of the rides he's taken us along on.

With all due respect to any creator/writer of a given project... none of what they say matters if it is not reflected in their works. Future stories are not governed by intent, rather influenced by the material that's already present.

I have no problem imagining Robin or Freeze in a Nolan franchise, because I know for a fact that with enough tweaks and creative thought that they are adaptable. Nolan can say it wouldn't work, but I'm sure even he knows it's more about him not wanting to do them in the first place as opposed to constructing a feasible means of working them into his world.

This I fully agree with.
 
It looked plainer than TDK's Gotham.

I'm flipping through the comic right now.

At the beginning I see the Begins type monorail on the large tracks in the sky.

On page 10 are large roads with lots of neon, it looks like Vegas type stuff.

On top of this it has a red color palette too. Something like this on screen would require color filters or stock colorization.

Are things like that common in big american cities?
 
Because at no time did Frank Miller say his universe doesnt include superheroes or Robin or Mr Freeze...infact Year one is part of the Dark Knight Universe which includes Batman/Spawn, All Star Batman and Robin, The Dark Knight Returns and the Dark Knight Strikes Back.

Still I don't understand how in the comics Batman as a member of the Justice League and can outsmart alien gods, but when he gets back to Gotham he has trouble with a guy with a hat fetish, its that kind of thing the movies should avoid.

When I think of realism in comic book movies I don't think of forgoing all fantastical elements from comics, I think of applying internal logic, keeping things consistent and having people react as like real human beings when dealing with things like super heroes and super powers.

Here's an example of things I had a problem with the old Superman movies and I liked those movies, but these elements certainly dragged them down. Superman spinning around the Earth and turning back time, not only does not keep sense of from a scientific standpoint, it also a bad plot point, if Superman can travel back in time, why doesn't he do that all the time, how can there be dramatic tension when Superman can simply go back in time and solve his problems before they start. Superman and the memory erasing kiss; all that build up with Lois' romantic sub plot and her finding out who Superman is, is thrown out the window with this cheap plot device. Again when the powers make things contrived, there is a problem. Superman is better off with a set number of powers, as soon as the writers have Superman pull new powers out of his butt as the plot demands, it just lazy writing.

Again there are things in the comics that I don't think ever worked very well. Having Captain Boomerang be the main villain for a Flash movie would be a mistake, because it isn't very believable that a go who goes at super speed would have problems with some guy who throws boomerangs. I think it make things realistic is to make things seem more consistent and less contrived.
 
On page 10 are large roads with lots of neon, it looks like Vegas type stuff.

On top of this it has a red color palette too. Something like this on screen would require color filters or stock colorization.

Are things like that common in big american cities?

Yes.
 
Still I don't understand how in the comics Batman as a member of the Justice League and can outsmart alien gods, but when he gets back to Gotham he has trouble with a guy with a hat fetish, its that kind of thing the movies should avoid.

When I think of realism in comic book movies I don't think of forgoing all fantastical elements from comics, I think of applying internal logic, keeping things consistent and having people react as like real human beings when dealing with things like super heroes and super powers.

Here's an example of things I had a problem with the old Superman movies and I liked those movies, but these elements certainly dragged them down. Superman spinning around the Earth and turning back time, not only does not keep sense of from a scientific standpoint, it also a bad plot point, if Superman can travel back in time, why doesn't he do that all the time, how can there be dramatic tension when Superman can simply go back in time and solve his problems before they start. Superman and the memory erasing kiss; all that build up with Lois' romantic sub plot and her finding out who Superman is, is thrown out the window with this cheap plot device. Again when the powers make things contrived, there is a problem. Superman is better off with a set number of powers, as soon as the writers have Superman pull new powers out of his butt as the plot demands, it just lazy writing.

Again there are things in the comics that I don't think ever worked very well. Having Captain Boomerang be the main villain for a Flash movie would be a mistake, because it isn't very believable that a go who goes at super speed would have problems with some guy who throws boomerangs. I think it make things realistic is to make things seem more consistent and less contrived.


yeah but because you cant see how doesnt mean someone else cant. Who thought Clock King was capable of being a credible threat before Batman the animated series?
 
I didn't find Freeze credible before that show.
 
which is the hypocrisy of the comics fan..you could get past the alien and the flying and the tights but going back and time is where it became unreal for you.

No one is debating the realism of Avatar or Expendables. We get that its a movie and such when Stallone can gun down a million soldiers without taking a hit. We get that people traveled to an alien world to get an ore and tried to kill of the alien inhabitants that happened to be 7 foot tall blue cats.

However the minute someone decides to make a movie about the great american myth...the superhero we have to somehow fit it in reality..everything has to be plausable. Like the General Audience doesnt have imagination and cant get past otherwordly happenings. No one will believe a guy who throws boomerangs is a threat to a guy who runs fast.....while the whole world is enamored with a wizard boy who rides a broom.
 
I just doesnt make sense to me.

People's heads would explode if they decided to reboot Harry Potter and make it real: Tone down the magic, eliminate the magical creatures and no flying on a broom.
 
Reminds me of when Kevin Smith talked about how he almost got the gig for writing Superman; he was expressly told no tights, no flights.
 
i just cant wait to get out of film school and start making movies....hopefully my name will float into the fantasy/superhero circles...I'd love to do a superhero movie
 
I must've stumbled into some kind of alternate dimension where every movie Superhero movie after the Dark Knight is actually realistic and gritty. Must go back.
 
I must've stumbled into some kind of alternate dimension where every movie Superhero movie after the Dark Knight is actually realistic and gritty. Must go back.
You didn't see Iron Man 2? After TDK came out, Favreau decided to make it ultra realistic, so in the first five minutes, Iron Man crashes into the wall of a building and is set on fire by his own rocket boots. The rest of the movie is about his funeral. It was pretty depressing, but it's to be expected, because TDK ruined everything. Even reality is unrealistic in comparison to that movie, so I've been asking myself about the meaning of my own existence ever since seeing it.
 
which is the hypocrisy of the comics fan..you could get past the alien and the flying and the tights but going back and time is where it became unreal for you.

No one is debating the realism of Avatar or Expendables. We get that its a movie and such when Stallone can gun down a million soldiers without taking a hit. We get that people traveled to an alien world to get an ore and tried to kill of the alien inhabitants that happened to be 7 foot tall blue cats.

However the minute someone decides to make a movie about the great american myth...the superhero we have to somehow fit it in reality..everything has to be plausable. Like the General Audience doesnt have imagination and cant get past otherwordly happenings. No one will believe a guy who throws boomerangs is a threat to a guy who runs fast.....while the whole world is enamored with a wizard boy who rides a broom.

How can any villain pose a threat Superman, when he can simply go back in time and stop their schemes from happening in the first place

You as well say with this logic, any stupid story is okay, because now suspension of disbelief covers everything no matter how dumb it is. I guess Highlander II is now a good film, because even though it was stupid and made no sense , it is still ok because Highlander was about immortals, so adding space aliens and cyber punk elements in the second film is ok. According to this logic Star Trek V is a good film because Star Trek is sci fi and not reality, so some really stupid plot where Kirk blows up God with Klingon bird of prey is fine too. Consistency doesn't just apply to comic book movies, but every movie. According to this logic Robocop II is a good film, because Robocop I was a comic book type movie, so having a really dumb plot where a corporation puts a drug addicted psychopath's brain into a unstoppable robot and thinks it is a good idea.

Suspension of disbelief has limits and having Superman time travel and erase memories ruined any sort drama in the films. Suspension of disbelief is not carte Blance.

yeah but because you cant see how doesnt mean someone else cant. Who thought Clock King was capable of being a credible threat before Batman the animated series?

Did Clock King fight a guy who goes faster then the speed of light? Its bit easier to buy some guy without any special powers or tech posing a threat to a someone like Batman, who doesn't have any powers, but the Flash being threatened by a guy who throws boomerangs, despite having the ability to go faster then the speed of light? How doesn't that defy internal logic?
 
Last edited:
I was watching "Watchmen" last night & it amazed me how riddled with implausibilities it was. There's no logical explanation for why Rorschach's mask was in a constant state of flux. The heroes are all impossibly strong. There's no justification for the costumes, no hiding the fact that they're ACTUALLY WEARING COSTUMES. This is a movie aimed at adults. Not families or mixed audiences, like most superhero projects. This movie has no hope of a PG-13 rating or being featured in the Macy's parade. And yet it was not afraid in any way to embrace the bizarre.
 
In all fairness, they should have explained Rorschach's mask. It was a pivotal part of his character development, just as important as showing Comedian's back story. They really butchered his story, especially the part about the kidnapped girl.
Beyond that, I enjoyed all other aspects of the movie.
 
Last edited:
I love how going out on a limb and doing something different (portraying a superhero in a world that has a realistic tone) than anything that had ever been done before is now considered "being afraid" because people have responded to it positively. I also love how it's all of a sudden considered to be limiting yourself if you don't include every single villain in the rogue's gallery just for the sake of including them, regardless of whether or not they fit the story you're trying to tell. No previous director had to do it or even had it expected of them, but it's become a crime overnight, it seems.
 
I was watching "Watchmen" last night & it amazed me how riddled with implausibilities it was. There's no logical explanation for why Rorschach's mask was in a constant state of flux. The heroes are all impossibly strong. There's no justification for the costumes, no hiding the fact that they're ACTUALLY WEARING COSTUMES. This is a movie aimed at adults. Not families or mixed audiences, like most superhero projects. This movie has no hope of a PG-13 rating or being featured in the Macy's parade. And yet it was not afraid in any way to embrace the bizarre.

Both of those things are a result of the adaptation. The origin of the mask was explained in the book, and the characters abilities, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias of course, where much more down to Earth. The later is a change I really didn't like. It hurt the tone of the story, and it made the things that made Ozymandias unique and interesting less impressive.

My issues with Nolan's movies is it doesnt allow for a Mr. Freeze or a Penguin or even a Robin. To me it makes it an incomplete universe...as if someone wanted to remake Star Wars but no advanced weapons or Force. Its why I prefer the Marvel movies. When I watched Spider-man I never said to myself "There is noway they can do Lizard or Vulture."
I am glad that Nolan got a chance to do the movies hopefully the next director who comes to reboot the series will do away with the black rubber and bring us a world where if someone fell into a vat of chemicals they'd come out permawhite

But, wether or not they exist in the wider universe, if they don't have a place in the story Nolan's trying to tell, then having them in there would just be tacked on. He's not obligated to use every Batman character, it would be kind of a cluster **** if he did, and if he said they existed and weren't in the story, well, that wouldn't really change anything, would it?
 
Last edited:
I am not saying Robin has to be in every story....however the universe shouldnt exclude that sometime along the line he takes a teen sidekick or the creation of a Mr Freeze.
 
I am not saying Robin has to be in every story....however the universe shouldnt exclude that sometime along the line he takes a teen sidekick or the creation of a Mr Freeze.

But if the stories Nolan's trying to tell won't include those characters, then how does saying it's the case effect anything? There's still no Robin or Mr. Freeze in the movies. It's all a matter of, when it comes time to write the next movie, wether or not Nolan or another film maker thinks up a good story involving Robin or Mr. Freeze that they feel an urge to tell.
 
It wouldn't make sense to toss Robin into a movie series that takes place during the first year or two of Batman's career. Robin comes along much later than that. Nolan himself has never said that Robin is "unrealistic," and frankly, people get too caught up in associating realism with these movies. The Joker was a demigod in his movie. He had plans within plans that always went PERFECTLY up until the very end of the film. And even then, he didn't seem too upset about being caught, so maybe he wanted to be. You can ***** about makeup all you want, but that was not a realistic depiction of the character, nor was it intended to be. Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there. Nolan's only comment, to my knowledge, about Robin is that he's still in a crib somewhere. He never said Robin couldn't be part of his Batman continuity, and if anything, his comment suggests the opposite.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,324
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"