The question of "realism".

[Azrael]

Right now I write some things that were written many times, but can't help it.

I don't know if it is my personal knack for the fantastical as well as the "truth", in the form of allegory and symbols, a good piece of sci-fi or fantasy (literature or film) can hold (who said that "artists use lies to tell the truth", heard in V for Vendetta?), or my usual boredom with straight action films set in the "real (movie) world". We know that what we see on-screen can't happen anyway, what the movie "wants to say" is what matters more.

I also don't know if it my detachment from what happens in the online "Batman scene" so I get a bit "surprised" when I see some stuff: to put it plainly, it has been a long-long time since I checked BOF, SHH or other outlets, and have been a regular at BOF only in the early 00s. "Batman", the old films or the new, takes up a very limited space in my mind anymore, despite my great love for the character.

I just do NOT see the point with this obsession with "realistic" (or hyper-realistic, or pseudo-realistic, whatever) Batman, started by the Nolan films, as much as I loved both of them. I hope I don't beat a dead horse, I just write this after reading some talk about possible successors to Nolan after he calls it quits, and Michael Mann was the first mentioned (yeah, as if he'd do Batman, he's 65 old), as well as very vocal opinions about how the series should remain "grounded in reality" (grounded - the right word).

I think seeing only one side is pretty close-minded. I mean, look at the James Bond films. The series has gone forever (no pun intended), there are great entries as well as embarassing ones, ranging from villains that want to wipe out the earth to Bond fighting against drug-dealers.

I don't talk about the different interpretations in general, but about why this can't happen in the movies? Everything can happen in the movies as long as there are capable directors and writers involved, and I think they could pull off less "grounded" Batman installments in the future after Nolan is done, that don't necessarily clash with the tone established in BB, TDK (or the future "BB3"). All they need is to hire the right director(s) and writer(s) that know and love the character and want to make good films.

And there is already talk about the "Nolanization" of almost every villain in the Batman roster. I mean, yeah, we saw this take and Nolan has an open arc to close so BB3 must be "true" to both BB and TDK, but, as childish as it may sound, a little fantasy never hurt anyone.

My point after this long text featuring multiple grammatical and spelling mistakes is the obvious:

The success and critical acclaim shows that this "realistic" version has a lot going for it and is indeed more relevant with the times, but it should not remain the ONLY one accepted film version for future Batman installments. And, of course, not a factor to devalue B89, which was an incredibly powerful and pitch-black mainstream blockbuster, by the standards of the time it came out.

Anyway, just an opinion.

[zDBZ]

Well, on the issue of the series being able to encompass different tones and styles, there's a strong arguement to make that the Burton/Schumacher era was exactly that. There was a loose continuity between Burton's two films but he did use different storytelling styles and designs, while Schmuacher's films were more consistent with each other but wildly off from what Burton had set up.

"Realism" does seem to be all the rage right now. Bond's jumped on the bandwagon too, and right now that's the series where it bugs me more, if only because it's been around longer and has more traditions that Craig and Co. seem determined to avoid (put the gun barrel in front of the movie and play the damn Bond theme!!!)

I can understand the push toward realism with Batman. He is the one major superhero without any powers. And, truth be told, one major complaint with the old series was that the fantasy and comic book-iness of it all just went over the top (though I think the wrong director's been taking the heat for that as of late.) And I do think that Nolan, at least with The Dark Knight, managed to make a solid Batman movie that even people like me, who prefer a less realistic approach, could really get in to.

I do think, though, that carrying Batman so far into our world does, to a certain extent, miss the point of the character. The first and biggest issue is that Bruce Wayne is a grown man running around at night dressed like a bat. And he does this because his parents were killed when he was eight. That doesn't happen in real life. That's not realistic. That's a big, operatic, larger-than-life concept. The term for Batman's world that I'm most fond of is "macabre melodrama," and that's exactly what it is. Batman's world has never been some magical fantasy, and I'm not an advocate of making it into one. But it has much more in common with The Phantom of the Opera, Sweeney Todd, and the classic operas than it does with Heat or Se7en, which is the style that Nolan is trying to make Batman fit into. One of the biggest problems with Begins IMO is that, once Bruce is back in Gotham and in the suit, Nolan kept trying to sell the story as a realistic crime film when the material wasn't that. I'm not impressed with the second half of the Begins story anyway as I think it descends into a lazy action film, but Nolan seemed very uncomfortable trying to direct Bruce as Batman battling supervillains. One complaint I've seen thrown against The Dark Knight is that Batman isn't in the movie enough and that it's not really about him. I don't agree with that, but I would agree that The Dark Knight is much, MUCH more of an ensemble than Begins, which was only from Bruce's POV. I'm wondering if, on some subconscious level, that's not Nolan realising that Gordon, Harvey, and his take on the Joker would give him more leeway into the kind of Heat-style drama he was interested in. Again, I don't look at that as a fault, but I do think that's a sign of how difficult it is to make Batman a "real world" figure.

I also think that the decision to shoot Gotham City in Chicago with no real attempt to hide any major landmarks is a huge mistake. Personally, I've never seen Gotham (or any fictional DC city) as a real place; I've always seen it as a caricature of a city, New York specifically. Dennis O' Neil's quote about Metropolis being the good side of New York on a bright summer's day and Gotham being the bad side of New York on a cold winter's night is the perfect way to look at it IMO. That doesn't necessarily involve constucting an alternate-reality city, which I would prefer but can understand why others are against that. But I think that being able to spot such well-known sites as the Chicago Tribune building does break down the suspension of disbelief to some extent. That's why I never liked Metropolis in the earlier Superman films; it's jarring to me to be told that I'm in a fictional city when I can clearly see that it's not.

I neither want nor expect the series to maintain this level of "realism" forever, and to be fair, I think most fans of this approach accept that reality. Nolan showed with The Dark Knight that a Batman movie can be fantastic even for people who aren't on board with his take, so at the moment, it's much less an issue for me than it was after Begins.

[DarkVengeance]

Realism is exactly what the Batman franchise needed IMO and Ill leave it at that, I dont feel like writing a short novel here lol.

[Dark Knight Detective]

Realism is exactly what the Batman franchise needed IMO and Ill leave it at that, I dont feel like writing a short novel here lol.

I'd say that 50% of realism is what the Batman franchise needed, while the other 50% would be fantasy.

[DarkVengeance]

Well what % your saying seems to be the same % that every action/sci-fi movie uses these days. I would much rather see Nolan keep his films more realistic for his franchise, so maybe later on down the line we can see a possible more fantasy-driven Batman film, when I say maybe, that really is a maybe.

We've already had fantastical versions of Batman in plenty of forms, especially the Burton films and blahh yes the Schumacher films. It was not only a smart idea to make the franchise a more realistic tone, its what Batman needed, IMO that is.

[Paul (ral)]

It's all a question of verisimilitude

[zDBZ]

It's all a question of verisimilitude

Exactly.

The Batman series didn't need to move in the realistic direction Nolan has taken it; it needed to take itself seriously again and support the suspension of disbelief. Not to say that Nolan didn't achieve that, but there were more ways to go about that than bringing Batman into "our world."

[Batnar]

It's all a question of verisimilitude

Exactly.

The Batman series didn't need to move in the realistic direction Nolan has taken it; it needed to take itself seriously again and support the suspension of disbelief. Not to say that Nolan didn't achieve that, but there were more ways to go about that than bringing Batman into "our world."

I agree 1000% with that commment.

[riddler]

The uniique thing about batman is that he has no superpowers. He's just like one of us with better toys. So it needed to be realistic. I remember seeing Batman and Robin as a 14 year old and thinking it was too far fetched.

Even the dark knight had unrealstic plots;
-no way the Joker could rig a hospital with bombs
-Two face would have not been able to speak properly and would have been extremely irritated with no eyelid
-the jokers plot to kill one and only one of harvey and rachel is unfeasable No way to time it so only one dies and the other lives.

But as mentioned, the suspension of disbelief should be required for any film. I think they just wanted to get away from Batman having a gadget in his utility belt for any scenario. I loved the way Gotham citywas portrayed as a corrupt city where aside from the main characters Bruce, Harvey, Rachel, Gordon, the Joker, Lucious, and Alfred, you didnt know who would be a good guy and who would be a bad guy. I loved the thriller elements where the only person who was ever safe was Bruce because of the fact that there were inside people at all levels.

[The Dark Knight]

Sure, BB and TDK are more realistic in tone, but they are comic book through and through. Nolan has not lost sight of that.

They have:

Impossibly large swarms of bats rampaging through areas, and are able to summoned at will. Vaporizing toxins with microwave emitters. The Tumbler flying across rooftops and large distances. Getting finger prints off shattered bullets. The use of a 3D mobile phone sonar system.

And Joker's use of oil drums is an effective demonstration of Joker's genius. Did he really need to use so many in his scenarios? No. The Joker is a showman. The Joker likes to taunt people and demonstrate how he can manipulate them time and time again.

All of that stuff is pure Batman.