The "realism" thread

[metaphysician]

I hate the word "realism", because its always used as a code word for "dark, gritty, low level."

Good movies don't need realism, they need *verisimilitude*. They don't need to be consistent with reality, they just need to be consistent with their own established rules.

 

[El Payaso]

The success of Avengers proves that a comic book movie DOES NOT have to be "realistic" to be accepted. Moviegoers happily watched a ragtag team of superheroes, IN COLORFUL COSTUMES, strike from a flying fortress to thwart an alien invasion led by a mythological god wielding a magic cube.

I'm more concerned about the movie's actual quality than its acceptance amongst GA. GA's eat everything with great action and fantastic CGI up without further problem. Transformers 2 could prove that a movie DOES NOT have to have a "brain" to be accepted.

 

[The Morningstar]

Avengers was good though, and had a "brain".

But that is besides the point. Avengers was filled with colourful superheroes. It had an alien invasion led by a God from Norse Mythology. It had a cosmic cube.

What made it great though was that the characters, these superheroes and supervillains, had very REAL, and relatable characteristics.

That's what you do. No matter how ridiculous the concept, no matter how powerful the character, you ground them with a personality and motivation that is real. It's all about the people underneath the superpowers and silly costumes.

 

[El Payaso]

Avengers was good though, and had a "brain".

I clearly refered Transformers 2 as lacking of one. I was talking much more about the reasoning than the actual movie. The acceptance amongst people doesn't mean it's good.

But that is besides the point. Avengers was filled with colourful superheroes. It had an alien invasion led by a God from Norse Mythology. It had a cosmic cube.

What made it great though was that the characters, these superheroes and supervillains, had very REAL, and relatable characteristics.

That's what you do. No matter how ridiculous the concept, no matter how powerful the character, you ground them with a personality and motivation that is real. It's all about the people underneath the superpowers and silly costumes.

The problem here is how this is told as "the way" to go.

It's just as absurd as when, not too long ago, people were saying certain things needed to be realistic, gritty and dark to be taken seriously.

And please, Avengers is far from being the first movie proving that fantasy and red capes work.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't think realism or lack of realism that is the problem. Simply put there things in the comics that are either dated or never worked well in the first place.
Taking a villain with a lame personality and adding some elements seems like a good movie, as well as updating parts of a character's origin (like Tony Stark getting injured in Afghanistan.)

 

[Bat-Mite]

The success of Avengers proves that a comic book movie DOES NOT have to be "realistic" to be accepted. Moviegoers happily watched a ragtag team of superheroes, IN COLORFUL COSTUMES, strike from a flying fortress to thwart an alien invasion led by a mythological god wielding a magic cube.

So are you admitting that your fears were completely unjustified? It's been almost two years since this topic started and there still hasn't been a mainstream superhero besides Batman with a movie that can be called "realistic" in any way. Meanwhile, we've had X-Men: First Class, Captain America, Thor, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider 2, and the aforementioned Avengers, with nary a hint of realism in any of them.

As for the ultra realistic and heretical Nolan movie, it has Batman flying around and dodging missiles with expert skill in some kind of hybrid air vehicle, has Catwoman fighting and riding the batpod in high heels (while wearing an updated Julie Newmar costume), and the villain seems to possess an earthquake machine. And that's just what we know from the trailers...

And please, Avengers is far from being the first movie proving that fantasy and red capes work.

Yes, but people can become very forgetful when it's convenient to be.

 

[roach]

i don't think they are completely unjustified. Yes we haven't seen a grim and gritty movie ala TDK but how many times have we heard a particular costume for a character can't work because of realism (Captain America)...

 

[JAK®]

For me, the whole 'realism' argument has nothing to do with fears over what future adaptations would do. It's about the frustration of dealing with people on boards like this who defend realism because Nolan is doing it.

The entirety of the Bat-boards revealed their hypocrisy the minute the Catwoman costume was revealed anyway. Years were spent telling people that a form-fitting fabric costume wouldn't work on film.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

For me, the whole 'realism' argument has nothing to do with fears over what future adaptations would do. It's about the frustration of dealing with people on boards like this who defend realism because Nolan is doing it.

The entirety of the Bat-boards revealed their hypocrisy the minute the Catwoman costume was revealed anyway. Years were spent telling people that a form-fitting fabric costume wouldn't work on film.

Hypocrisy on the Batman forums! Why I never...

 

[The Morningstar]

lol what an absurd notion!

It's like the whole thing with Devin Feraci's recent article. The Bat fanatics were going crazy. When all he did was say that some of TDK's success was because it resonated with audiences due to it tackling themes like terrorism, which was playing on peoples minds at the time.

What made it hypocritical is that he was saying some of Avengers success was because it resonated with audiences due to it being pure escapism and making people forget about the economic crisis.

But if the article was mainly about TDK and how great it was because it resonated with audiences due to the issues about terrorism, you can bet your lifes savings that it would be worn as a badge of honour by the Bat fanatics.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

lol what an absurd notion!

It's like the whole thing with Devin Feraci's recent article. The Bat fanatics were going crazy. When all he did was say that some of TDK's success was because it resonated with audiences due to it tackling themes like terrorism, which was playing on peoples minds at the time.

What made it hypocritical is that he was saying some of Avengers success was because it resonated with audiences due to it being pure escapism and making people forget about the economic crisis.

But if the article was mainly about TDK and how great it was because it resonated with audiences due to the issues about terrorism, you can bet your lifes savings that it would be worn as a badge of honour by the Bat fanatics.

I really like Devin as a writer and reviewer but sometimes I do think that he is trying to screw around with the Nolan Batman fans. And honestly I don't know if I care too much. The Bat-boards have gotten way better but the hardcore Nolanite's brought this on themselves and the innocent bystanders by labeling Devin's 8.5/10 review of TDK and my 9/10 review of the film as bashing it just because we mentioned things that we didn't like. Just because we didn't think that it was a flawless masterpiece, just because we don't love every film that Nolan has made.

As for the article at hand, I find it a little suspect, especially when he forgets to note that a 2012 film about children killing children grossed nearly 400mil domestically and without the aid of 3D tickets.

With all that being said, I am super excited for TDKR's and I'm hoping that the hardcore loons don't tear me apart if I don't give the movie a 10/10.

 

[The Morningstar]

Well yea i think a part of that article was to bait the Bat fans. And it worked. They can only blame themselves for proving Devin right. Obviously not all of them, but i'd say they are the aggressive, crazy Star Trek fans of the comic book world.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well yea i think a part of that article was to bait the Bat fans. And it worked. They can only blame themselves for proving Devin right. Obviously not all of them, but i'd say they are the aggressive, crazy Star Trek fans of the comic book world.

They do always take the bait. It's odd that they haven't learned their lesson yet.

 

[BatsDC]

I'm not a fan of realism in Superhero movies. I don't mind if they are grounded into a 'realistic' world, but changing superheroes to make them realistic doesn't fly with me.

 

[Chris Wallace]

i don't think they are completely unjustified. Yes we haven't seen a grim and gritty movie ala TDK but how many times have we heard a particular costume for a character can't work because of realism (Captain America)...

Right. I still prefer Cap's Avengers costume to what he wore in his solo film, even bearing in mind the time period. And I loathe every costume in Batman's upcoming film.

 

[The Question]

Ummm, define realism?

With come exceptions, I generally prefer all of the fictional works I read or watch to be realistic.

By my standards, The Avengers was perfectly realistic (with maybe one minor issue in a fight scene that's not worth mentioning). Assuming, for a moment, that all the sic-fi stuff in the film is a thing that's real, then the movie's totality realistic. People act like people, situations develop the way they would, and things generally make sense.

The reason realism is important for someone like Batman is because he's a dude without super powers, and we're pretty familiar with what dude's without super powers are capable of. So, if a dude without super powers in a movie does something that dude's without super powers can't do, it's going to stand out and people will be taken out of the movie. If a movie has a more comedic or silly bent to it, then it's usually okay, but it tends to bug people in something that;s trying to be a straight drama with some action. So, it's a big deal. However, we've never encountered a super soldier or a Thunder God or a Hulk. They're not things that are apart of our daily experience. So if you put one in a movie, people tend to be more accepting of them doing weird stuff because we expect to not know how something with have no experience with works.

Similarly, the thing with Spider-Man and a more home-made looking costume. Yeah, people with Spider-Powers aren't a thing. So if they are a thing in a movie, whatever. But, people sewing clothes is a thing. Pretty much everybody who watches movies wears clothes, and most of them have at least a vague idea of how clothes are made. So, if we see a kid with no money making a costume, we have a preconceived idea of how that might look. It's why, at least in my case, the Raimi film costume bugs me. Some people will say "You accept people with spider-powers, but not that a kid could make that costume by himself." Well, yeah, I do. Because spider-powers is something the film is inserting into the world. But making clothes is a real thing.

So, generally, that's how I see realism being important. It's a super hero movie, we expect the movie to insert things that aren't part of a normal real world experience into the narrative. Where realism comes in is that a lot of movie goers expect the movie to not **** up the things that are real that we have preconceived notions of.

 

[The Question]

Also, I'd like to say something on the subject of costumes:

This is just my personal taste, but when it comes to movies I tend to look at aesthetics in narrative terms. Like, in the case of super hero costumes, it isn't as important to me that they're generally aesthetically pleasing as much as the aesthetic works with the narrative and reflects the story and characters.

Like the whole deal with Spider-Man and a more home-made looking costume I brought up. Beyond the basic realism thing I mentioned, I also think Spider-Man wearing a costume that looks like a kid could have made it on a budget is a really cool idea. I think it's cool because it brings character to the look. It says something about the person who made it and the place he's at in the story. A perfect, professionally made Spider-man costume looks nice, but it isn't apart of the narrative in the same way, so it's less appealing to me.

Likewise, with Captain America. Aesthetically, I prefer his costume in The Avengers, and I think his Avengers costume suited that film better than the costume from his solo film would have. But in his solo film I prefer the costume he had there, because it works better in the narrative. It fist the tone of the film, and the idea of turning military fatigues into a super hero costume says something about Steve as a person and his role in the story. Plus, it being a sort of "proto-costume" helped sell the idea that Captain America was the first super hero ever. Overall that outfit is less aesthetically pleasing, but it worked better in that story, so in that story I prefer it. That's how I look at costumes.

 

[JAK®]

People aren't against true realism, which by your definition is simply consistency, physics and believability. Richard Donner's idea of 'verisimilitude' is actually well regarded by many.

No, this thread is a backlash against the Hype's version of realism, which means black rubber, colourless costumes, dark grittiness and directed by Christopher Nolan.

Basically, it's all one big rebuttal against the people on the Bat-boards who argued, in complete seriousness, that grey is not a realistic colour.

 

[Thundercrack85]

A distinction should be made between realism and believability.

Any film starring a superhero, is not realistic. Some can strive to be more realistic than others, but that's just a poor word choice.

Believability requires good writing, designs that aren't too silly, and some consistency with the real world.

 

[JAK®]

Look up Richard Donner's concept of 'verisimilitude'. It is the perfect template for how superhero movies should be made.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

People aren't against true realism, which by your definition is simply consistency, physics and believability. Richard Donner's idea of 'verisimilitude' is actually well regarded by many.

No, this thread is a backlash against the Hype's version of realism, which means black rubber, colourless costumes, dark grittiness and directed by Christopher Nolan.

Basically, it's all one big rebuttal against the people on the Bat-boards who argued, in complete seriousness, that grey is not a realistic colour.

That's the perfect way to explain this thread's intent.

 

[The Question]

Well, in that case, I wouldn't even say that that's what realism means. Not everything in life is a dark broody crime thriller. To quote Alan Moore:

"Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."

So, like, making everything the same isn't realistic because not everything is the same.

 

[Artistsean]

I think that the Avengers movie is a game changer. Just like X-Men 1, then Spider-Man 1, and then Batman Begins and then Dark Knight, Iron Man 1, Cap 1, Thor 1, and now Avengers 1.
Those other movies brought superhero movies to another level. Studios started going the realism rout with lots of stuff because of Dark Knight, because it made a lot of money and satisfied many fans. But now Avengers has made so much money they can't ignore that. And Avengers didn't shy away from obscure comic stuff either. So I think we will see more comic movies that stick closer to a comic theme.

 

[weezerspider]

I honestly don't get how hard it is to accept the fact that Nolan's "realism" fits Batman because he has no superpowers and many of his supporting cast and villains don't either, but his "realism" wouldn't fit 90% of superheroes. I love Nolan's Batman films, but trying to make an Avengers film with that same mindset wouldn't work. I love the MCU films and their approach for the most part works for them too.

Nolan's films don't stand out because they are "realistic". They stand out because they are made by a group of Academy Award nominated(and some winners) cast and crew. The films are more serious. I certainly think that aspect could be improved in the MCU. Who says we can't have a more serious film with Norse God's and Chituria? Lord Of The Rings was quite farfetched and it managed to be serious despite having hundreds of fictional creatures. I'd love some more emotion in the MCU films. I get chills from certain scenes in Nolan's Batfilms, and Spiderman 2. MCU films are well done and fun. Aside for the ending of Cap and a few moments between Thor, Loki and Odin, I don't get that in MCU films. The Avengers was fun AND creative AND smart. It was great. However, it still wasn't emotional enough IMO. Just my taste in movies I guess.

 

[JAK®]

Well, in that case, I wouldn't even say that that's what realism means. Not everything in life is a dark broody crime thriller. To quote Alan Moore:

"Life isn’t divided into genres. It’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."

So, like, making everything the same isn't realistic because not everything is the same.

I know it isn't. But the thread is about people who think it is.