Is Batman realistic? Or just a comic book character?

[The Dark Knight]

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

I share your opinion.

[BatmAngelus]

And I completely agree with your statement:

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?.

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)...

The roster also included a shapeshifting Martian, the king of an underwater kingdom, an intergalactic policeman, and two other characters with superspeed going up against a man with mind control powers, the daughter of an immortal leader of a terrorist organization, and a group of artificial intelligence who inhabit humans' bodies and hunt down people with superpowers thanks to a supercomputer satellite...

[burtongenius]

You guys are definetely shooting down my arguments.  You're most likely right.  Batman probably isn't realistic.  Can't wait for nolans next movie.  And who knows, maybe burton will make a comeback?  I don't thing JLA mortal is ever going to happen but I hoped.

Common Consensus-  Batman is just a comic book character/movie character and nothing more.

[thecolorsblend]

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?.

Agreed, agreed and agreed again.  The Nolan films want to be treated like high brow cinema but when evaluated on those terms, they cannot pass muster.

They do, however, hold up rather nicely (TDK moreso than BB) when viewed strictly as big, dumb popcorn cinema.

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.

Burton never tried to make high brow cinema out of his films.  There's some stuff there to analyze and you can have a good time with that but Burton knew what vocabulary he wanted to make the Batman films in and stuck to it.

In all honesty, I can't immediately think of anything from the comics that you wouldn't be able to bring in to Burton's movies, except maybe some Alan Grant characters like Ventriloquist/Scarface, Anarky and some others.  I love Alan Grant as much as if not more than the next guy but those are hardly essential to the Batman mythos.

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

On the one hand, I agree.

But on the other... I dunno, the hypothetical of Burton coming back for more is extremely interesting.

But, um, on the other hand, one wonders if a new Batman movie from him would meet the standards set up by his other two.  Maybe it would.  Maybe it would be everything we've ever wanted from Burton as a Batman filmmaker.

But... maybe it wouldn't.  Maybe it just wouldn't be very good at all.  Maybe I've set up B89 and BR on such a high pedestal that nothing else Burton makes will ever be able to touch them.

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.

I think one of Burton's strengths as a filmmaker is that he believes in the world as it is.  You compare that to Schumacher, who could only process the comics as an absurdist cartoon filtered through the 1966 West show or even Sandy Collora's Dead End, which, imho, brought a little too much grit, shadow and nastiness to the proceedings, and I think it's clear that Burton has had the best overall tack on the character.  Nothing against the other directors who have handled the material over the years, as they definitely have their own strengths and talents as storytellers, but Burton made everything jibe and harmonize such that killer clowns and crazed cat women seemed like they fit perfectly in the world he'd established.

Honestly, I've been trying to go easier on Nolan lately.  He's a man, he has feelings and, honestly, while his Batman films haven't been my cup of tea up to this point, I haven't seen a non-Batman movie from him that wasn't unspeakably cool.  Another Nolan bashfest is probably not what I should do right now.

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.[/quote]
Yep, and to me that truth in advertising sets this forum quite apart from another Batman forum I could name.  One which claims to be for the fans but really is intended to be a shrine unto a certain filmmaker's take on Batman, with all others being marginalized.

[johnnygobbs]

Yep, and to me that truth in advertising sets this forum quite apart from another Batman forum I could name.  One which claims to be for the fans but really is intended to be a shrine unto a certain filmmaker's take on Batman, with all others being marginalized.

Agreed, and dare one say it the other site you refer to is a shrine to its owner's ego in which any kind of dissent from the Nolan's films are great/Burton's films suck mantra is completely shot down with little room for discussion.

[thecolorsblend]

Agreed, and dare one say it the other site you refer to is a shrine to its owner's ego in which any kind of dissent from the Nolan's films are great/Burton's films suck mantra is completely shot down with little room for discussion.

People have been banned for such a thing.  Actually, they were banned for not falling into line and changing their opinion but, eh, it comes to the same.

[johnnygobbs]

People have been banned for such a thing.  Actually, they were banned for not falling into line and changing their opinion but, eh, it comes to the same.

I can't access that site's forum anymore, even though I never posted there to begin with, so screw it.  I'm gonna be as rude about that particular site as I like (without actually mentioning its name of course - I don't want to get in trouble with this site's moderator).

[The Dark Knight]

That site sucks. It really does. The owner has done more damage in this Burton/Nolan war thing than anyone else.

The guy has an inflated opinion of himself. He is ignorant and too easily dismissive of Burton?s Batman. It should be called ?Nolan on Film?. His personal bias is obvious and shameless. He will cover Nolan?s upcoming film Inception, for example, but not Burton?s upcoming Alice in Wonderland. Sure, he has a preference, but he has a clear agenda and is not open minded as he claims. It is not balanced as such a site claiming to be "Batman on Film" should be.

If you have a different preference to him, e.g. Burton, you better change that preference and opinions to get in line with his. Otherwise you are out of there. No doubt about it. It is Nolan territory through and through. If you chant how excellent Nolan is and so forth, he will take you under his wing and claim you as a good poster.

I don?t care what people say, that is the way it is. You should not have to ?fight your corner?. I simply do not get that logic. People should be able to celebrate and discuss their favourite Batman films.

Burton praise is shot down immediately and dispelled as historically un-true, stupidity like that. You cannot level any form of criticism at their beloved Nolan at all. Then he steps in and escalates things, treating you like a fool and even leveling claims of trolling. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[Azrael]

agreed

[burtongenius]

Batman sites........ are hard.  Take any superhero.  A Flash site.  A Green Lantern site.  If they were made into movies, their would be no artistry, it would be the comics onto the big screen.  And therefore, nobody would be mad at the movie and would have common ground for conversation.  But since batman is a more complicated hero (no powers), batman sites really have to be batman movie sites.  But I think this one has balanced everyones views nicely.

Of course, recent incarnations of green lantern have him black and flash to be a jokester but........