So let me get this straight. Taking a dip in toxic chemicals that bleach your skin’s somehow more realistic then a vat of cryogenics? Harvey Dent’s face perfectly bisected is somehow feasible? Kids these days passing around the fear gas with their ecstasy? I can't tell you how many times I've seen tanks driving on roof's. Wearing a pointy-eared cowl’s the norm? Next time I grocery shop I’ll look around for someone in a leather muscle suit and cape. You’re living in a dream world, sucking Nolan off like some lemming. He himself has said that what he’s making is not realism, it’s more of a type of feasibility. Lending practicality to something that is entirely fiction. If this hypothetically could happen, here's how it would. There’s nothing realistic about it when interpreted straight-forward, which is an unfair assessment and exactly what you’re doing to these characters.
Now take any charecter on that list and tell me how they have the same depth and complexity as the Joker and Two-Face.
As a matter of fact, for some of these characters, if you’d stay your bias, that’s particularly easy.
Bane: I’m not especially a fan, but by no rights is he exceptionally unbelievable. He’s merely an exaggerated steroid abuser. How is that any more or less believable then an ex psychiatrist running around with a burlap sack on his head and literally scaring people to death with some fictional hallucinogen? Fact of the matter is…it’s not.
Mad Hatter: Read about Hose Delgado and then explain how mind-control’s so far fetched. Not to mention the perversion of an innocent children’s tale into a literally mind-warping criminal (and questionable pedophile) is as far from “kids cartoon” as you can get. Have you even read “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” or “Through the Looking-Glass”? It’s filled with eerily adult undertones exploited by the character. Not to mention, aren’t you aware of the scarecrows roots in fairy tales? But apparently that’s okay, because Nolan used him. Not to mention, how is a clown any more mature when you take it at face value?
Poison Ivy: Some interpretations of the character are merely a woman immune to plant toxins, which is entirely plausible, that wants to preserve the planet’s flora. Pheromones science is a very real thing and she’s merely found a way to bottle it. Give them time, ten to one they'll do it some day. She’s an exaggerated voice of Green Peace and Eco-terrorism. That’s particularly relevant in contemporary times. You do realize that Ra’s Al Ghul and Ivy share many of the same sentiments, don’t you?
Adding oomph, there’s a very real, bizarre and rare disease that can strike human being in which roots will literally grow from your body, much like some ploys Ivy’s committed. Google the tree man. Of course there are fantasy aspects to her, but there are fantasy aspects of Batman himself. It’s not what defines these characters. Nor do I see how her creation out of female necessity somehow strips her of any merit or serious and intellectual storytelling potential.
Mr. Freeze: Originally Mr. Freeze (or Zero actually) was admittedly nothing much more then a generic cold-themed villain. Batman the Animated Series changed that entirely. Speaking of which, BTAS used every villain mentioned and was considered remarkable adult tones, praised as one of the greatest animated works ever. You cannot sit and tell me that “Heart of Ice” wasn’t filled with adult themes. The symbolism and dicotomy is brilliant. The tragedy to him is unlike any other villain Bruce faces. He’s the walking embodiment of cold-heartedness.
Cryogenics is a very feasible way of murder. Victors bath in dry ice is obviously fiction, but the gun and homocidal acts he commits aren’t out-of-this-world. Concentrate dry ice and turn it into a gas gun, you’ve effectively got a “freeze gun” of sorts. No it probably would not freeze instantly, but given enough exposure you would eventually be killed. I fail to see how this is any more ridiculous as compared to fear gas, Joker venom, or helicopter umbrella's.
Killer Croc: He’s stricken with a disease, basically a really bad case of Herpes zoster, also known as Shingles. You essentially form scales. Plus considering that “tree man” I mentioned earlier, is this really that silly? Sometimes life’s shockingly like a comic book. I always felt they should have ran with the cannibalistic element of Croc, but it’s usually skimmed over. The point's that he has potential.
There’s themes to many of these caricatures that have a very solid foundation in reality. They’re just heightened. That’s what Nolan coined Batman as being-heightened reality. This isn’t reality. Get that straight. The point is that you can get very real psychological, relevant and thus intelligent theme from fantastical concepts. Batman’s been successful and dark for decades. Nolan knows and acknowledges this. Bob Kane originally created him to be arguably darker then he is today. They’re all going to be pre-judged as kids stuff by some, Nolan’s versions included. A clown fighting a guy dressed up like a bat is not immune to any of this. Comic books will always face that stigma, and Nolan’s not the first to have fought it. Nolan’s not even remotely as bat-innovative as you seem to believe. The original Burton film brought Batman back into seriousness and dark tones some fifteen to twenty years before Nolan touched the character.
Batman films do not define this character, the comic books are his main medium. The fact that you seem to think otherwise makes you come off like some no-nothing noob. These characters do have merit, hence their longevity and enduring use. The symbolism, dicotomy, and psychology obviously went over your head. Fact of the matter is…you just don’t like these characters. It's not that they're not actually credible in some ways, it's rather that you'd just never admit it.
Apparently someone’s never told you that Batman…is a comic book character. Le GASP! Who knew? You strike me as one of those blokes that was first introduced to Batman via Nolan. You blatantly know little to nothing. Things aren’t going to change because some Nolan fan boy’s to bias to accept anything that’s not from Nolan. They're not going to change because some Nolan zombie's too dim-witted to grasp the psychology and intellectualities of so called sci-fi characters. Get used to them or get out. You’re alone and they‘re not going anywhere.
So to be quite honest, my thoughts summed up...you're a narrow-minded moron, not a Batman fan. You speak opinion as if it's fact. Well then I'll return that favor: Most of these characters have fit the tone of the dark and serious Batman for years. BTAS and the comics prove that alone. Frank Miller and Nolan didn't create Batman, nor do they own him. The irony's that a lot of what Nolan used as source material included some of these characters you'd deem silly. To top it off, you do realize that Frank Miller has written super-powered characters before, right? Superman in Dark Knight Returns for one. How is ice-breath any different then a freeze gun? Heck, I'd argue a freeze gun's more realistic. Your hypocrisy and ignorance is astounding, thus the only thing that's been stripped of any mature credibility...is you.
