Is Batman realistic? Or just a comic book character?

[The Dark Knight]

I guess everybody likes the fantasy batman.

Here we do. This site covers all the films, but we mainly appreciate Burton?s Batman. That's why we are here. Nothing to be surprised about, it?s a given.

And nobody thinks batman is realistic.  Hopefully burton will make more batmans for you guys.  

Batman is not realistic. Neither Burton nor Nolan. The more real Nolan tries to be, the more he appears ashamed of the comic roots. Most of the things that make Batman the comic character he is and larger than life are ironed out because Nolan views them as ?unrealistic?. Well, sorry, but that?s how comics are. Personally, realism removes the fun and replaces it with plodding dullness. No imagination to be sparked here. It?s all got to be explained and shown in great detail. What?s wrong with suspending our disbelief?

Using suspension of disbelief for anything that would lead to escapist and over the top fun is forbidden, but for anything that makes the movie a more incoherent, jumbled and illogical mess, then it?s okay to accept the unbelievable. That?s the foolishness of it all.

You cannot translate what is on the comic page directly into Nolan's world. You cannot have villains such as Mr Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat and so on exactly as they are in his series.  His Batman universe can only go so far, and it cannot cover all areas. And absurdly, you cannot have a permawhite Joker, but you can have a ridiculous sonar cell phone mapping system which sticks out like a beaten down thumb.  What sense does it make if you are going to practice selective realism?

Once you accept Nolan?s idea that this is meant to be realistic, intellectual and adult and start judging it by those standards, that means you have to start taking it to task for the limitless ways it fails in plot mechanics, characterization, motivations and logic under those higher standards. Yet when those are pointed out, people say ?It?s a comic book movie?.

With Burton, he had the power to adapt anything in the comics. I don?t apply the same severe levels of judgment to him, because he was unafraid to embrace the outlandish aspects of the comics. Nolan does not. Nolan tries to have his cake and eat it too.

It is extremely unlikely that Burton will make another, and to tell you the truth, I?m perfectly content with what he gave us.

I don't think his batman movies were the best.  They were definetely "out there" and left an impression on me, but I think batman should be left to less of an "artist" shall we say.

A short while ago you would not shut up about how brilliant Burton?s Batman was. I am of the opinion that Tim Burton is the best director of Batman yet. An artist such as Burton is perfect for Batman, as he builds worlds from the ground up. He realizes the world visually with tons of atmosphere that Nolan could not match on his best day. Your comment is absurd. And Burton is a genius for every single film made in his career, except for his two Batman films? Please.

then why is there a nolan section?

There is also a Schumacher section. And an Animated Series Section. And so on. This site covers all the films. But we love Burton the most. The slant is obvious.

[burtongenius]

Again, for the 500th time.  I know most of the batman villains are unrealistic.  I know that.  I really do.  But Nolan made a batman on the big screen that was realistic.  And thats all that matters. 

As far as the cellphone thing- waynes rich, morgan freemans a science researcher for a humongous company, there is nothing outrageously outlandish about the cellphone thing.  Their are obviously things out their in science that us little people don't know about.  Its sort of naive to thing otherwise.  Of course their wouldn't be more than one of them.  Its a big deal, don't get me wrong.  But theirs nothing "unbelievable" about it.  Same with the microwave emitter.  And wasn't the cellphones thing private?

Another principle.  Its alright to have fantasy.  But if you have the same thing in a realistic protrayal, why would you want the fantasy?  I mean, theirs nothing wrong with powdered milk.  But why would you want powdered milk when you can get the real thing (barring money of course).  Sort of like B westerns.  People loved them.  They were the top motion picture back in the day.  Until A- quality westerns came out.  Then people went crazy over them.  Nothing wrong with B westerns.  They obviously weren't the best choice.

Now what you're saying is that fantasy vs. realism is a personality choice.  What I'm saying is what reasonable person is going to pick fantasy over realism, assuming realism is an option?  With stuff that is just fantasy, fantasy is the obviously best way to go.

[The Dark Knight]

But Nolan made a batman on the big screen that was realistic.  And thats all that matters.

I'm never going to agree with that. Realism is "all that matters"?!

As far as the cellphone thing- waynes rich, morgan freemans a science researcher for a humongous company, there is nothing outrageously outlandish about the cellphone thing.

?

It's even more absurd than the microwave emitter if you ask me.

But if you have the same thing in a realistic protrayal, why would you want the fantasy?

Because absurdly unrealisic things like sonar cell phones and microwaves emitters break the realistic atmosphere. They would not be out of place in the comics, or in Burton's Batman, but in Nolan's environment, they are. If you're going to do realism, go the whole way with it.

What I'm saying is what reasonable person is going to pick fantasy over realism, assuming realism is an option?  

Me. And everybody on this site. This is one of the stupidest questions I have read in a long time. Quite bizarre you simply cannot comprehend people liking fantasy over realism.

With stuff that is just fantasy, fantasy is the obviously best way to go.

Yeah, well, Batman is fantasy.

As Burton says in the Batman Returns official movie book, "If Batman Returns takes you to another place, another plane with its own reality, then I think we accomplished what we set out to do." Burton twisted reality until it came into alignment with his own vision.

[BatmAngelus]

This topic has got me thinking: What is so realistic about Nolan's version of the Batman character?

Sure, he wears a suit of armor, instead of spandex.   He has no superpowers and relies instead on his intelligence, gadgets, and fighting skills.  So do all the other versions of Batman.

The comic book Bruce Wayne sought mentors around the world to train him in various forms of martial arts.  
Nolan's Bruce learned to fight after he landed in a prison that just happened to be in the vicinity of a secret ninja terrorist organization in the Himalayas who were able to dupe him in five minutes into joining up with them, despite giving little to no explanation on what exactly they do.  
Is that really more realistic than the comic version?

The comic book Bruce gained his extensive knowledge through attending many colleges.  He's extremely well educated, but allows him to use his knowledge when fighting crime.
Nolan's Bruce is a college dropout who went around the world living as a bum for about seven years of his adult life...but still manages to identify the effects of a psychotropic hallucinogen (using that exact term), lift a fingerprint off of a bullet casing through a complex science experiment, and, in only a matter of days or weeks, secretly create his own sonar device that taps into all of Gotham's phones.  
Is Nolan's take still more realistic?

The comic book Bruce is also an inventor who builds his own bat equipment.  
Nolan's Bruce meets a brilliant inventor, Lucius Fox, who just happens to be in need of something to do and is willing to hand over dangerous military equipment, with no questions asked, to a stranger he just met (even though this stranger gives a very vague and suspicious reason for needing it)
(Note: Said inventor has no problem handing over a monstrous tank car with an escape pod bike with machine guns and explosives, but, when it comes to invading people's privacy just to stop a psychotic terrorist for one night, he refuses to help.)  
Is the latter case easier to swallow?  Really?

The comic book Batman is often wounded.  It's not uncommon to see his suit torn up and Bruce bleeding from his wounds.  Or his villains using his wounds against him in the fight.  He gets his bones broken.  He blacks out.  He's very much human.

Nolan's Batman manages to fight Arkham inmates, League ninjas, and Ra's Al Ghul on a speeding train without much of a physical problem...despite the fact that he was bleeding from a stab wound on his side, had a concussion for at least five minutes, and breathed in a ton of fumes from his burning house...probably less than an hour ago.

Not to mention, in The Dark Knight, how he manages to survive a free fall from Wayne Tower and (after unveiling only part of his glider) land on the hard surface of a car without breaking a single bone in his body (or, more unbelievably, without breaking or injuring the woman he's rescuing, who is not wearing any protection whatsoever).  Sure, he has body armor.  People who wear it still get hurt.  Cops who survive shots thanks to their bulletproof vests still fall back and have severe bruising.

Repeat scenario when he survives the same fall that kills Two-Face at the end. 

So, compare the comic book Bruce and Nolan's Bruce again: Who seems more superhuman now?

To me, the "realism" that Nolan brings to his Batman series is aesthetic, but under the surface, you really do have to believe in the unbelievable and buy into the stretches in logic.

Sure, his Gotham looks like Chicago, rather than an imaginary city.  It also had a league of ninjas infiltrating it without notice and breaking out the criminally insane from a mental hospital that just happened to be located in the worst, rundown neighborhood of the city.

Yeah, his suit in The Dark Knight looks more like SWAT or military armor.  That doesn't change the fact that Lucius Fox was conveniently able to make the whole thing in less than a few days after Bruce Wayne requested it, just in time for Bruce's next mission.

And I know his Batmobile looks like a military-designed tank.  It doesn't forgive the fact that it magically didn't kill or severely harm the cops who were chasing him.  
Nor does it cover up for the further stretch that none of the cops endangered by said car had a problem with the GCPD putting up a Bat Signal on top of the roof and working with the man who nearly killed them.

Of course, even with the villains seem to be more realistic- The Joker wears makeup, instead of suffering from a chemical bath, and uses everyday weapons as knives, machine guns, and explosives.  
Still- no one managed to notice a suspicious man with obvious scars on his face wearing a police uniform during the entire parade for Commissioner Loeb's funeral.  
Or that the Joker magically managed to load two ferries full of explosives without the heavy presence of the National Guard noticing.

My opinion: The "realism" of Nolan's Batman is an aesthetic illusion.

[johnnygobbs]

It's a pity that 'Burtongenius' has got us descending to the level of squabbling over who is best, Burton or Nolan.  I thought Ral had made it very clear, that's not what this site is meant to be about.

Thanks 'Burtongenius'!    

[burtongenius]

Okay, first off this topic isn't about nolan or burton or anyone.  Its about whether a batman could possibly exist in the 2010 United States of America.

Batmanangelus-
You have some good arguments but I think you may be nit picking a tiny bit.
Bruce was in a bad place.  Alghul got him out of there and helped him resolve his inner demons.  When he found out about them being bad, he got out.

Wayne did attend princeton for a little while.  But thats not the point.  I don't think any college could prepare anyone to be batman.  For a person to be batman, they would have to be smart.

Lucius fox had to give bruce his own stuff.  And the car isn't meant to be dangerous.  Its not like an airplane after all.  Its only in sticky situations that things with the car get hairy (like when the police force first saw it)  Ever since then he did it in secret (or at least inconspicuously) (after all, gotham city is humongous).  And in situationns when that was impossible, he used the bat bike.

[burtongenius]

When the dogs attack batman right in the beginning, he seems pretty vulnerable.  Whats more vulnerable than a dog?  Plus, when he dropped that guy and broke his legs.  I don't think there were any super physics there.

I understand what you're saying.  You're saying that nolan gives the premise of reality but doesn't follow through.  That he shows reality and tweaks any hairy details to make the flow of plot nice and smooth.  I don't think so.  But thats just my opinion.

I know that batmans origins may seem improbable.  But I also say that there is only one batman.  Therefore, the person who is batman has to go through certain channels.  Suffering, pain, training, rich.  Thats the only way batman could exist. 

Also, improbability doesn't equal unrealistic.  Probability has nothing to do with it.  Its whether its possible.  And I think its possible in a big city like gotham.  It has to be a big city or everything falls apart.

[burtongenius]

And who knows.  Maybe somebody in the future will make the batman that really clicks.  I was hoping that George Miller would make Justice League Mortal.  I don't think thats going to happen.  But Arnie Miller would've been batman.  Arnie Miller is going to star in the movie "Billy Graham".  I don't know when its coming out but it definetely will be good.  He even tried on the suit and batarangs.  And I heard a rumor of Hayden Christiansen being superman.  But I am definetely not sure about that.

All I know is is that batman is the only comic book incarnation that could possibly be real.  And maybe the real batman couldn't totally be like the comic book batman.  But it would be a batman and he would fight crime.  I have great respect for Bob Kane.  And Stan Lee.  I think thats why everyone loves batman.  Because he's just like us with a few breaks to help him out.

[BatmAngelus]

Batmanangelus-
You have some good arguments but I think you may be nit picking a tiny bit.

Thanks, but the nitpicking was part of the point.  
I can enjoy the Nolan films despite all of these aspects because I don't buy for a second that it's all meant to be realistic.

Nolan's world is far fetched- full of coincidences and people doing extraordinary things.  But it's fiction- we can forgive it sometimes and just enjoy it.  It's the same with the comic world.

Bruce was in a bad place.  Alghul got him out of there and helped him resolve his inner demons.  When he found out about them being bad, he got out.

That still doesn't negate anything that I was pointing out: the unbelievable coincidence of him landing in such a convenient location near the League of Shadows, the very existence of a top secret ninja terrorist organization in the Himalayas whose leader comes down to recruit an imprisoned vengeful billionaire, and Bruce's initial decision to make a lifethreatening trek up the Himalayas for a flower after a brief conversation that informed him very little about the League of Shadows...when he could've just moved onto elsewhere after getting out of jail.

Wayne did attend princeton for a little while.  But thats not the point.  I don't think any college could prepare anyone to be batman.  For a person to be batman, they would have to be smart.

College or not, Bruce needed to learn the skills in science and technology in order to do what he does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  Where he learns these skills is never covered (despite the fact that Nolan spent half the movie covering Bruce training to become Batman).  One can be talented and smart, but one does not attain skills and knowledge without any training.  
His training for science and invention is never covered in the Nolan films and is something we are supposed to accept, despite the fact that there is nothing in his background that supports it.

Lucius fox had to give bruce his own stuff.

Sure, for the plot's sake.  That doesn't shoot down anything I said about how completely far fetched the situation was.  
Was there a strong motivation for Lucius to do this?  Bruce didn't tell him clearly what he was going to do with it.  Lucius knew almost nothing about Bruce personally, so there's no way he would know that Bruce was going to use it in his war on crime.  
For the sake of the plot...he just gives it to him without a fuss.  Which I don't find believable or realistic.  Lucius Fox in general is a plot device more than a character.

And the car isn't meant to be dangerous.  Its not like an airplane after all.  Its only in sticky situations that things with the car get hairy (like when the police force first saw it)  Ever since then he did it in secret (or at least inconspicuously) (after all, gotham city is humongous).  And in situationns when that was impossible, he used the bat bike.

The car is a military tank with guns and the ability to crash through walls without harm.  You don't just give that out to anybody.  The fact that Lucius Fox was willing to give it to Bruce on his second meeting without question is, once again, something I find unrealistic.
Just like I find it unrealistic that Batman was able to use that behemoth inconspicuously on his way to Arkham to save Rachel and wasn't noticed using it until his trip afterwards.

When the dogs attack batman right in the beginning, he seems pretty vulnerable.  Whats more vulnerable than a dog?  Plus, when he dropped that guy and broke his legs.  I don't think there were any super physics there.

I'm not criticizing Nolan's use of physics or Batman's vulnerability in other scenes.  I'm specifically pointing out Nolan's Batman's ability to survive two major free falls without any serious injury.

Just because Nolan follows through by having Maroni break his legs in one scene doesn't negate the fact that Batman gets away with no injury in two other scenes (and one where he survives an even bigger fall than Maroni fell, without injury).
If anything the inconsistency ends up making Nolan's world seem more unrealistic.

But Arnie Miller would've been batman.  Arnie Miller is going to star in the movie "Billy Graham".  I don't know when its coming out but it definetely will be good.  He even tried on the suit and batarangs.

His name was Armie Hammer.

[johnnygobbs]

What I don't get is that Burtongenius wants a 'realistic' Batman, and yet he states that this would have best been achieved with a JLA movie (which would also have featured a flying alien superhero and an amazonian with an invisible plane, amongst other characters)...