Will Marvel Studios make a film than is grounded in reality?

[TheHeatKitchen]

It turned every hero into a sci-fi story, so it didn't throw out that old notion at all. In fact, if anything they solidified the idea.



I'd call Avengers a movie grounded in reality as much as possible without losing the fun/basic premise, which, as I said, leads to said success. It helps that it was built off of five films that were even more grounded in reality, so it has a strong realistic foundation it's building off of.



I think you and others confuse 'grounded in reality' with 'totally realistic.' Captain America had fantastical elements, but they were all immersed in the very real realities and notions of WWII. Then, when they brought in the sci-fi, the movie started reeking. Thor had many fantastical elements, but each was broken down into something more realistic. Gods became aliens, realms became distant planets, rainbow bridges became wormholes, magic became advanced science. This notion of 'well, if they don't throw reality out of the window they have to throw fantasy out the window' doesn't reflect in any of the successful superhero films. The MCU has been very grounded in reality, and changed many things about these characters, outright mocked silly fantastical concepts like Life Model Decoys and secret identities.

That was sort of the point I was alluding too..... a lot of people are thinking "grounded in reality" automatically means it has to be on a Christopher Nolan level, and it doesn't. Marvel's movies were actually very "grounded." My examples were driven by the idea that people are relating "grounded" to "Nolan-esque."

To me, "grounded" means it's more plausible than possible. It's more about explaining how the fantasy could be real, not how it is real. DC has been trying to make their movies real, while Marvel is trying to explain how their stories could be real.

 

[The Overlord]

Frankly Captain America is the only Marvel movie where I felt the tone was wrong.

Iron Man and Thor had the appropriate tones for the movies they were fine for the stories they were trying to tell. Captain America's tone just didn't work.

Captain America is a golden age character but his film felt too silver age. Hydra didn't exist till the 60s and Cap fought Nazis, not Hydra in the Golden Age.

I think the Cap movie should have felt like a 30s pulp film, where the sci fi was at a minimum. It felt more like a 50s sci fi movie, which was the wrong tone.

 

[s_mikheidze]

Frankly Captain America is the only Marvel movie where I felt the tone was wrong.

Iron Man and Thor had the appropriate tones for the movies they were fine for the stories they were trying to tell. Captain America's tone just didn't work.

Captain America is a golden age character but his film felt too silver age. Hydra didn't exist till the 60s and Cap fought Nazis, not Hydra in the Golden Age.

I think the Cap movie should have felt like a 30s pulp film, where the sci fi was at a minimum. It felt more like a 50s sci fi movie, which was the wrong tone.

Hmmm...I actually loved the tone of the Cappy flick. I thought it captured the feel of that era quite admirably. As far as the Hydra thing....the comics and movies don't line up exactly and that is fine with me. So long as they don't deviate too much, I am open to a reasonable amount of change.

 

[The Overlord]

Hmmm...I actually loved the tone of the Cappy flick. I thought it captured the feel of that era quite admirably. As far as the Hydra thing....the comics and movies don't line up exactly and that is fine with me. So long as they don't deviate too much, I am open to a reasonable amount of change.

To each their own, expect as I said before, I felt using Hydra over the Nazis hurt the story, not

The movie was set in WWII, but with Cap fighting Hydra agents with laser guns instead of Nazis with normal guns, it feels like they didn't really use the WWII setting. Again it feels like a sci fi film, which is the wrong for Cap, which should have been more similar to a 30s action adventure film.

 

[DrCosmic]

That was sort of the point I was alluding too..... a lot of people are thinking "grounded in reality" automatically means it has to be on a Christopher Nolan level, and it doesn't. Marvel's movies were actually very "grounded." My examples were driven by the idea that people are relating "grounded" to "Nolan-esque."

To me, "grounded" means it's more plausible than possible. It's more about explaining how the fantasy could be real, not how it is real. DC has been trying to make their movies real, while Marvel is trying to explain how their stories could be real.

Hmmm... I agree for the most part. I don't think that Nolan was trying to make it seem like it is real, but simply provide more plausibility on how it could be real. But that's splitting hairs.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I like when people point to Nolan's films when looking for examples of "realism", when I fully believe that Nolan's characters are easily as fantastical, if not more so, than anything in other comic films. I am left scratching my head way too often wondering "why would [insert character] DO that?" when watching his movies. Often times Nolan's characters will do things for no other reason than it moves the plot along.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I think to this point, every MCU film is a worthwhile attempt at the concept of "this is the most probable way this hero could be portrayed in a realistic setting."

As the characters themselves become more far-fetched so too do the films themselves.

More realistic
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
Captain America
The Incredible Hulk
Thor
The Avengers
Less realistic

and I only assume it will continue to be less and less realistic as we go. We will begin to see more "cosmic stuff" more about the nine realms and possibly even more about magic (Loki, Dark Elves, maybe Doctor Strange someday).

I'm actually having trouble thinking of a Marvel hero who actually is realistic in the same vein as (Nolan's) Batman. The Punisher is probably the closest and I feel the 2004 Punisher film does him realistic justice.

 

[s_mikheidze]

I think to this point, every MCU film is a worthwhile attempt at the concept of "this is the most probable way this hero could be portrayed in a realistic setting."

As the characters themselves become more far-fetched so too do the films themselves.

More realistic
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
Captain America
The Incredible Hulk
Thor
The Avengers
Less realistic

and I only assume it will continue to be less and less realistic as we go. We will begin to see more "cosmic stuff" more about the nine realms and possibly even more about magic (Loki, Dark Elves, maybe Doctor Strange someday).

I'm actually having trouble thinking of a Marvel hero who actually is realistic in the same vein as (Nolan's) Batman. The Punisher is probably the closest and I feel the 2004 Punisher film does him realistic justice.

Punisher and Daredevil are the only ones that come to mind.

 

[DrCosmic]

I like when people point to Nolan's films when looking for examples of "realism", when I fully believe that Nolan's characters are easily as fantastical, if not more so, than anything in other comic films. I am left scratching my head way too often wondering "why would [insert character] DO that?" when watching his movies. Often times Nolan's characters will do things for no other reason than it moves the plot along.

Badly written != Fantastical. Anyone that says Japanese dressed in Chinese armor is as fantastical as aliens who call themselves gods is kidding themselves, imho.

 

[Lord]

Badly written != Fantastical. Anyone that says Japanese dressed in Chinese armor is as fantastical as aliens who call themselves gods is kidding themselves, imho.

No, but sonars coming out of every cell phone in a city is pure fantasy.

 

[Chewy]

As is a dude walking around and talking with half his face gone

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Yeah seriously, there are tons of equally unbelievable aspects in Nolan's films. And give me a break with this "realism" stuff, I can't stand it. Why in the world do you go to a superhero movie looking for "realism"? It's like going to a WWE match and looking for actual athletic competition. Superheroes are by nature fantastical and not realistic. That's the whole point. It's like complaining about LOTR because Hobbits don't exist. So what? That doesn't change the fact that it's still a sick story.

My biggest gripe is that I don't want to see a realistic superhero; I want the superheroes to seem realistic. Those are two VERY different things. That's my biggest complaint about Nolan's films, he makes a realistic version of Batman, when I want to see Batman portrayed realistically. It's totally different, and it's a difference that Marvel understands.

Let's look at a very simple comparison, Bane vs. Loki. Loki is obviously less realistic, but his character acted much, much more believable than Bane did. Bane has been planning this "destroy Gotham" scheme for his entire life, and he decides to wait months to let that bomb go off? Or allows Batman to live in a pit for months, heal, and escape? "Your punishment must be more severe", give me a break, how cliche is that. That's B movie Bond villain type stuff. Loki tries to kill all the Avengers just about every chance he gets, he doesn't wait around.

 

[kedrell]

It turned every hero into a sci-fi story, so it didn't throw out that old notion at all. In fact, if anything they solidified the idea.

Well, you're talking mainly about Thor, right? All the others ARE from somewhat of a sci-fi backround in their original stories. I think what they did with Thor was simply make things ambiguous, intentionally so. Sure you can look at Thor and take it as sci-fi and that IS the way most human characters choose to look at him inside the MCU(what with Jane Foster's Arthur C. Clark speech and all) and some things in the film seem to support that(the realm of Jotunheim looking very planet-in-outer-space like). But then there are other things that counter that(Asgard clearly not looking like a planet at all; Hogun clearly referring to Loki as a master of magic; Selvig talking to Fury about the Thor experience he had as seeing a doorway to another dimension, not outer space;etc.) You can choose to look at it either as sci-fi OR pure fantasy. I myself prefer the latter. And when Dr. Strange eventually comes along it's only going to get even more "out there".

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Things awr gonnnnn git STRAYNNGGGGGE.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Seeing as Christopher Nolan's Batman interpretation has been critically and financially acclaimed, I was wondering if Marvel Studios would try to use that same mentality for one of their future superhero franchises. What do you all think?

If they EVER get the Punisher right, they'll have to ground that in reality. But otherwise no.

 

[spideymouse]

If they EVER get the Punisher right, they'll have to ground that in reality. But otherwise no.

Well, part of Nolan's mindset was that his Batman could never exist in a world where people had superpowers. Is that what we want for Punisher? That would be a non-MCU Punisher. Not sure about that. Sure, a Punisher movie itself would be dark, gritty, and something that could happen in the real world, but would you write him out of the MCU entirely?

 

[OsGom]

only ones who deserves this treatment is daredevil and thank god fox has it since marvel would'nt make it dark or grounded they'd make it in tune with their MCU tone

my biggest problem with marvel is they take zero risks and are not very ambitious

batman films are very ambitious and even MOS looks the same

for instance they went away from nazi's in cap but fox went all the way with that in x men first class

How can you say they don't take risks and they are not ambitious? Marvel Studios was a risk in itself. Let alone launching with a B-List character starring a washed up ex-addict. Then interweaving their films with the goal of making a team film and in the process successfully introducing to topics of magic and aliens. Marvel Studios is the poster child of ambition and risk.

Sure they could have taken more risks but to me grounding a superhero in reality is playing it safe. It shows no regard or appreciation for the medium that spawned the character.

 

[metaphysician]

Well, part of Nolan's mindset was that his Batman could never exist in a world where people had superpowers. Is that what we want for Punisher? That would be a non-MCU Punisher. Not sure about that. Sure, a Punisher movie itself would be dark, gritty, and something that could happen in the real world, but would you write him out of the MCU entirely?

I think Punisher works fine in the MCU. He's just in the "action movie" part of it, rather than the "alien invasion" part of it. Honestly, you could import than Jane Punisher without any real change, and it'd work fine. Hell, it'd actually work *slightly* better, in that the Russian could be explained as an actual superhuman rather than just an incredible freak of nature.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I agree with everything you just said, OsGom

 

[Destructus86]

Marvels films ARE grounded in some realism in some ways...but not nearly as much as Batman...Nolan's Batman sort of takes the fun out of Batman.

Marvel had guts introducing the cosmic elements into their world...combining the movies..heck..even the SHIELD Helicarrier is fantastical...you would never see anything like that in the current Batman films. Nolan didn't even have the guts to introduce any superpowered villains.

 

[The Overlord]

Well, part of Nolan's mindset was that his Batman could never exist in a world where people had superpowers. Is that what we want for Punisher? That would be a non-MCU Punisher. Not sure about that. Sure, a Punisher movie itself would be dark, gritty, and something that could happen in the real world, but would you write him out of the MCU entirely?

Punisher Max is not part of the MU and that is my favorite version of Punisher, so I have no problem with Punisher not being part of the MCU. I think Punisher works best is a real without super powers dealing with gangsters rather then super villains.

 

[cherokeesam]

Punisher Max is not part of the MU and that is my favorite version of Punisher, so I have no problem with Punisher not being part of the MCU. I think Punisher works best is a real without super powers dealing with gangsters rather then super villains.

They already tried that. Three times. Never worked once.

The reason is simply that Punisher is a dime-a-dozen action hero in an ordinary world; NOTHING separates him from the pack of shoot first-ask questions later gunmen already out there on film for the past umpteen decades. (Other than a pretty nifty skull logo.) But in the MCU, where he takes on the likes of Stilt-Man, he's a fairly unique character.

 

[The Overlord]

They already tried that. Three times. Never worked once.

The reason is simply that Punisher is a dime-a-dozen action hero in an ordinary world; NOTHING separates him from the pack of shoot first-ask questions later gunmen already out there on film for the past umpteen decades. (Other than a pretty nifty skull logo.) But in the MCU, where he takes on the likes of Stilt-Man, he's a fairly unique character.

The idea of Punisher fighting gangsters is sound, just because those 3 movies were written by hacks and botched the execution

How many great stories have there been were Punisher fought gangsters vs. great Punisher stories were he fought super villains? Most of the really great Punisher have ones were he fights gangsters, instead of super villains.

Plus if the concept of Punisher is just "dime a dozen" character in the movies, how does putting him against lame one note gimmick villains like Stilt-Man would make things better? All that does is cause the budget to explode, so if Punisher was just fighting gangsters, he can do that on a small budget and if the movie has a modest box office take, it will do well. However if add a flashy super villain, the budget will be way higher and Punisher would have to be a blockbuster hit to do well. Will Stilt-Man put enough butts in seats to make for the budget costs he would add to the film?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I think to this point, every MCU film is a worthwhile attempt at the concept of "this is the most probable way this hero could be portrayed in a realistic setting."

For more proof, consider that no one addresses each other as Black Widow, Hawkeye or Iron Man, but "Agent Romanoff," "Agent Barton," and "Stark" or "Tony," respectively. "Captain Rogers" also seems more widely used than Captain America.

Not that I have any problem with this. Just making a defensive point for the series' attempt at realism.

 

[VM1138]

I like when people point to Nolan's films when looking for examples of "realism", when I fully believe that Nolan's characters are easily as fantastical, if not more so, than anything in other comic films. I am left scratching my head way too often wondering "why would [insert character] DO that?" when watching his movies. Often times Nolan's characters will do things for no other reason than it moves the plot along.

I disagree. Nolan's idea of realism is to create believable characters and a believable setting (the populist movement in TDKR) and then let things follow a logical progression.

The "realism" just happens along the way. There are some fantastic things in his Batman movies, but there's no doubt they are more grounded than the MCU.

Everything in them is at least given some sort of plausible explanation based in real world logic. Even the fear toxin in BB, which is pretty inrealistic, is made to seem as if it could happen. The Joker could easily happen, and Bane's movement in TDKR could as well. Of course they are still comic book movies and have fantastical elements, but I think the characters and events are all perfectly logical.