The "realism" thread

[kedrell]

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.

Yes, but in the context of the rest of the movie it really stuck out. Had this kind of thing happened in the more fantasy-esque Burtonverse, it would have fit well. But in TDK it was like OH MY GOD! ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME!

 

[The Joker]

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.

Well said

Yes, but in the context of the rest of the movie it really stuck out. Had this kind of thing happened in the more fantasy-esque Burtonverse, it would have fit well. But in TDK it was like OH MY GOD! ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME!

Not to me it didn't. We'd already had ninjas living in the Himalayas plotting to destroy a city with fear toxin and a microwave emitter. Going from that to a criminal genius psychopath in a purple suit and make up, who doesn't play by any rules, fit in very well with Nolan's world.

 

[kedrell]

Not to me it didn't. We'd already had ninjas living in the Himalayas plotting to destroy a city with fear toxin and a microwave emitter. Going from that to a criminal genius psychopath in a purple suit and make up, who doesn't play by any rules, fit in very well with Nolan's world.

I had no problem with this. It's him basically being a demi-god as Bat-Mite said that I think crossed the line in a mighty big way given how the rest of the movie was represented. That last part is key, as I said the exact same stuff in Burton's cartoony world would have fit.

 

[The Joker]

I had no problem with this. It's him basically being a demi-god as Bat-Mite said that I think crossed the line in a mighty big way given how the rest of the movie was represented. That last part is key, as I said the exact same stuff in Burton's cartoony world would have fit.

I think you're exaggerating. We're not talking about ridiculous plot devices like marching penguins with rockets on their backs, a supernatural Catwoman with nine lives, the people of Gotham wanting a freak bird man who came from the sewers to run their city as Mayor, or the Joker announcing on public TV that he'll be at the parade at midnight and there's not one Cop there to arrest him etc.

The whole point of it was escalation. How was the rest of the movie represented that contradicted the Joker's antics? Nothing Joker did couldn't have been achieved in the context of the movie, especially since the mob was backing him to get rid of Batman for them, and it's spelled out in the movie that they have people working for them in Dent's office, in the Police force etc.

Two Face ends up going after several of them for their part in Rachel's death.

 

[kedrell]

I think you're exaggerating. We're not talking about ridiculous plot devices like marching penguins with rockets on their backs, a supernatural Catwoman with nine lives, the people of Gotham wanting a freak bird man who came from the sewers to run their city as Mayor, or the Joker announcing on public TV that he'll be at the parade at midnight and there's not one Cop there to arrest him etc.

The whole point of it was escalation. How was the rest of the movie represented that contradicted the Joker's antics? Nothing Joker did couldn't have been achieved in the context of the movie, especially since the mob was backing him to get rid of Batman for them, and it's spelled out in the movie that they have people working for them in Dent's office, in the Police force etc.

Two Face ends up going after several of them for their part in Rachel's death.

I'd say Joker's multi-multi layered and 'so completely improbable that they exist in the impossible realm' schemes are JUST as ridiculous as those you mentioned. The big difference is that those KNEW they were ridiculous and didn't treat themselves as anything but that whilst with the Joker's schemes in TDK they actually expected us to take them seriously.

 

[Fudgie]

I'd say Joker's multi-multi layered and 'so completely improbable that they exist in the impossible realm' schemes are JUST as ridiculous as those you mentioned. The big difference is that those KNEW they were ridiculous and didn't treat themselves as anything but that whilst with the Joker's schemes in TDK they actually expected us to take them seriously.

You're wrong. It's a comic book movie. You're not supposed to take it seriously. If you think you have to then comic book movies arent for you. But the Jokers schemes in TDK were far more plausible than the cartoony garbage in Burtons movies.

 

[kedrell]

You're wrong. It's a comic book movie. You're not supposed to take it seriously. If you think you have to then comic book movies arent for you. But the Jokers schemes in TDK were far more plausible than the cartoony garbage in Burtons movies.

I think Nolan himself would disagree with you on that point. Everything I've ever read of his interviews suggests that yes indeed he does expect all his films to be taken seriously.

And the Joker's schemesin TDK merely had more of a facade of plausibility due to their being surrounded by so much gritty realism in the rest of the movie. But make no mistake, they're just as ridiculous at their core. Which I have to say I find more than a little insulting. The "shell game" is ok when you use it with SFX stuff but using it with character/story stuff is a big no-no in my opinion.

 

[Chris Wallace]

What do you mean, kedrell?

 

[The Joker]

I'd say Joker's multi-multi layered and 'so completely improbable that they exist in the impossible realm' schemes are JUST as ridiculous as those you mentioned. The big difference is that those KNEW they were ridiculous and didn't treat themselves as anything but that whilst with the Joker's schemes in TDK they actually expected us to take them seriously.

In what way didn't the Burton movies not treat their storylines seriously? Batman Returns is arguably the darkest Batman movie yet. So much so that it got a big backlash from the public for being too unsuitable for kids, and caused WB to drop Burton's vision and go in the Schumacher direction.

Just because their goofs are more obvious doesn't mean they were not asking you to not invest yourself into the storylines. They just were not asking you to assume it's all plausible. In Spider-Man 2, you invest yourself in the themes, and Peter Parker's emotional journey, and the challenges he faces. But you're not supposed to think for a second that it's real. The themes and emotions are. The actual storyline itself is not. Ditto with TDK, or any good comic book movie that takes a mature approach to the hero.

Your mistake is that you think you're expected to believe everything you're watching could happen in real life. You mistake a mature approach to the comic book genre as realistic.

I think Nolan himself would disagree with you on that point. Everything I've ever read of his interviews suggests that yes indeed he does expect all his films to be taken seriously.

Show me some of these interviews, please.

 

[kedrell]

By the 'shell game'? It's when you try to mix elements up to keep the audience guessing as to what's real/true and what's not. Works well in SFX. But in character/story stuff it comes off more as "let's do our darndest to distract you with exciting little character bits or action sequences that will buy us a lot of goodwill/faith and keep people from examining our plot or it's elements too closely".

 

[kedrell]

What do you mean, kedrell?

By the 'shell game'? It's when you try to mix elements up to keep the audience guessing as to what's real/true and what's not. Works well in SFX. But in character/story stuff it comes off more as "let's do our darndest to distract you with exciting little character bits or action sequences that will buy us a lot of goodwill/faith and keep people from examining our plot or it's elements too closely".

 

[Fudgie]

I think Nolan himself would disagree with you on that point. Everything I've ever read of his interviews suggests that yes indeed he does expect all his films to be taken seriously.

And the Joker's schemesin TDK merely had more of a facade of plausibility due to their being surrounded by so much gritty realism in the rest of the movie. But make no mistake, they're just as ridiculous at their core. Which I have to say I find more than a little insulting. The "shell game" is ok when you use it with SFX stuff but using it with character/story stuff is a big no-no in my opinion.

Riiiiiiiight so cos Nolan want his movies to be taken seriously as movies that means he's asking us to also believe everything in them is plausible? Now is that for just his Batman flicks, or is he asking us to believe the likes of Inception is real, too?

Your line of reasoning is more implausible than anything Nolan could come up with pal.

 

[kedrell]

Mostly sexuality was the cause of BR's backlash. And they didn't take their comicbook elements seriously unlike the Nolan films(TDK moreso) in the fact that they felt no need to explain how they worked or could make sense. They were pretty over the top but then the film makers knew that. They knew these were in large respect, live-action cartoons. That they happened to be dark didn't change that. Anytime Batman is riding along in his bat-boat and on his radar the picture of a duckie appears....you just know they were simply enjoying the cartoony aspects of it all. Doesn't make those movies good(for all the crap I give TDK, it's still better than either Burton film), but at least it makes them not insulting.

 

[kedrell]

Riiiiiiiight so cos Nolan want his movies to be taken seriously as movies that means he's asking us to also believe everything in them is plausible? Now is that for just his Batman flicks, or is he asking us to believe the likes of Inception is real, too?

Your line of reasoning is more implausible than anything Nolan could come up with pal.

You totally missed my point. I don't think Nolan expects everyone to believe what happens in his movies are actually possible. But he does expect his stories to be taken seriously rather than being seen as a bunch of live-action cartoons.

 

[The Question]

I had no problem with this. It's him basically being a demi-god as Bat-Mite said that I think crossed the line in a mighty big way given how the rest of the movie was represented. That last part is key, as I said the exact same stuff in Burton's cartoony world would have fit.

I don't know. For me, it didn't so much seem like all of his plans went off absolutely perfectly and more that he only had vague goals of showing Gotham a "better class of criminal," so he benefited from many of the possible outcomes of his plans.

 

[The Overlord]

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.

And I did not think that movie was very good and it didn't very well. Really being slavishly devoted to the source material in of itself is not a virtue, I think the best adaptions kept the spirit of the source material while putting their own spin on things, rather just copying the source materials word for word.

The fact most people think Dark Knight was a good movie and it a made a ton of money, so why shouldn't Nolan continue to do things his way? It seems to work.

Should Batman and Robin get points for being over the top and featuring Mr. freeze and Robin? I don't think so.

Besides are there not somethings that just wouldn't look good in live action, like MODOK?

 

[ALP]

Yes.

Sorry, I have no clue what I'm talking about!

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.

what what!? Missing the origin of the mask I fully give you, but how does changing a small aspect of the kidnapped girl flashback "butcher" all of Rorschach's story!?

Mostly sexuality was the cause of BR's backlash. And they didn't take their comicbook elements seriously unlike the Nolan films(TDK moreso) in the fact that they felt no need to explain how they worked or could make sense. They were pretty over the top but then the film makers knew that. They knew these were in large respect, live-action cartoons. That they happened to be dark didn't change that. Anytime Batman is riding along in his bat-boat and on his radar the picture of a duckie appears....you just know they were simply enjoying the cartoony aspects of it all. Doesn't make those movies good(for all the crap I give TDK, it's still better than either Burton film), but at least it makes them not insulting.

How could I forget?

 

[Chris Wallace]

And I did not think that movie was very good and it didn't very well. Really being slavishly devoted to the source material in of itself is not a virtue, I think the best adaptions kept the spirit of the source material while putting their own spin on things, rather just copying the source materials word for word.

The fact most people think Dark Knight was a good movie and it a made a ton of money, so why shouldn't Nolan continue to do things his way? It seems to work.

Should Batman and Robin get points for being over the top and featuring Mr. freeze and Robin? I don't think so.

God-that's not what I'm saying at all. "Slavish devotion", as you put it, is not what I'm advocating. But rather a nice balance between following the cource material and doing things your own way. I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, & when it does we get crap. One of my problems is when a movie does well & fans start thinking this approach will work across the board. (Not long ago, fans were pushing for a "Kick Ass"-inspired Spider-Man.) What Nolan did with Batman can ONLY be done with Batman. And it's my opinion that, while enjoyable, Nolan's approach to Batman isn't necessarily the best. I think in an effort to get away from Schumacher's debacle, we lost a lot of the magic of Batman & wound up with more of a crime drama involving a costumed protagonist. I am NOT saying that Nolan should do a 180, but I don't want other projects going the same route.

 

[roach]

God-that's not what I'm saying at all. "Slavish devotion", as you put it, is not what I'm advocating. But rather a nice balance between following the cource material and doing things your own way. I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, & when it does we get crap. One of my problems is when a movie does well & fans start thinking this approach will work across the board. (Not long ago, fans were pushing for a "Kick Ass"-inspired Spider-Man.) What Nolan did with Batman can ONLY be done with Batman. And it's my opinion that, while enjoyable, Nolan's approach to Batman isn't necessarily the best. I think in an effort to get away from Schumacher's debacle, we lost a lot of the magic of Batman & wound up with more of a crime drama involving a costumed protagonist. I am NOT saying that Nolan should do a 180, but I don't want other projects going the same route.

exactly

 

[kedrell]

God-that's not what I'm saying at all. "Slavish devotion", as you put it, is not what I'm advocating. But rather a nice balance between following the cource material and doing things your own way. I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, & when it does we get crap. One of my problems is when a movie does well & fans start thinking this approach will work across the board. (Not long ago, fans were pushing for a "Kick Ass"-inspired Spider-Man.) What Nolan did with Batman can ONLY be done with Batman. And it's my opinion that, while enjoyable, Nolan's approach to Batman isn't necessarily the best. I think in an effort to get away from Schumacher's debacle, we lost a lot of the magic of Batman & wound up with more of a crime drama involving a costumed protagonist. I am NOT saying that Nolan should do a 180, but I don't want other projects going the same route.

I agree. Regarding the Kick-Ass version of Spider-Man, obviously Spidey can't be R-rated but some aspects of the Kick-Ass movie could work well in a Spidey movie. Certainly moreso that going all TDK with a Spidey film. But they gotta have the knowledge to know what inspirational aspects of it to use and what to leave out.

 

[ALP]

God-that's not what I'm saying at all. "Slavish devotion", as you put it, is not what I'm advocating. But rather a nice balance between following the cource material and doing things your own way. I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, & when it does we get crap. One of my problems is when a movie does well & fans start thinking this approach will work across the board. (Not long ago, fans were pushing for a "Kick Ass"-inspired Spider-Man.) What Nolan did with Batman can ONLY be done with Batman. And it's my opinion that, while enjoyable, Nolan's approach to Batman isn't necessarily the best. I think in an effort to get away from Schumacher's debacle, we lost a lot of the magic of Batman & wound up with more of a crime drama involving a costumed protagonist. I am NOT saying that Nolan should do a 180, but I don't want other projects going the same route.

Quite agreed with this post.

Nolan indeed does a 'crime drama' take on Batman, at least in TDK. It was masterful. It's not the mysterious symbolic Batman I prefer but it was genius and I couldn't ask for more from Nolan. Everyone has a different style and this is his.

 

[El Payaso]

Anytime Batman is riding along in his bat-boat and on his radar the picture of a duckie appears....

Not only the image but also the quacking.

 

[The Overlord]

God-that's not what I'm saying at all. "Slavish devotion", as you put it, is not what I'm advocating. But rather a nice balance between following the cource material and doing things your own way. I think sometimes the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, & when it does we get crap. One of my problems is when a movie does well & fans start thinking this approach will work across the board. (Not long ago, fans were pushing for a "Kick Ass"-inspired Spider-Man.) What Nolan did with Batman can ONLY be done with Batman. And it's my opinion that, while enjoyable, Nolan's approach to Batman isn't necessarily the best. I think in an effort to get away from Schumacher's debacle, we lost a lot of the magic of Batman & wound up with more of a crime drama involving a costumed protagonist. I am NOT saying that Nolan should do a 180, but I don't want other projects going the same route.

But how many projects are aiming to be "exactly" like the Dark Knight, I don't see anyone saying that the Green Lantern shouldn't have a power ring or the movie shouldn't involve aliens. With the Thor movie, no one is arguing that Thor shouldn't be a Norse god. I don't see what the big concern is.

Again when I think of realism I think of better adherence to to internal logic and consistency and giving characters better motives. Like Whiplash has more believable motive in Iron Man 2 then in the comics, in the movie he has a personal reason for hating Tony Stark, while in the comics Whiplash invented an energy whip and decided to rob banks for no reason.

I think some plot points barely work in the comics anymore, like the frightful Four in the Fantastic Four. If they don't even work in the comics, how would they work on the silver screen? Wizard and Trapster are extremely one dimensional villains and its frankly not believable at all that the FF can defeat gods and have problems with. It seems like that concept would need a lot of changes to work on screen.

 

[roach]

just because I dont like Nolan's take on the movies doesnt mean i want a big budget version of Adam West and Burt Ward walking up the side of a building as Don Knotts peeks out the window

 

[Chris Wallace]

I agree. Regarding the Kick-Ass version of Spider-Man, obviously Spidey can't be R-rated but some aspects of the Kick-Ass movie could work well in a Spidey movie. Certainly moreso that going all TDK with a Spidey film. But they gotta have the knowledge to know what inspirational aspects of it to use and what to leave out.

Nothing that I saw in Kick-Ass would translate well to Spidey, IMO.