Comic Book Movies Trying To Be Realistic

I'm getting sick of comic book movies trying to be realistic. There is nothing realistic about comic books at all. Especially superheroes like Batman and Iron Man, who have no powers, fight supernatural villains all the time. You can make a comic book movie less silly, but trying to make it realistic just dumbs down any potential that series has. This is why Marvel is kicking DC's ass in movies, because at least Marvel embraces some of the silliness of the comic books.

You can blame the Nolan Batman films for this. They're sort of what started this stupid trend of "trying to be more realistic/dark."

I have nothing against some movies going for a more "Dark, realistic" tone, as long as it fits the universe. Like Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Batman's rouge gallery isn't supernatural. They're mostly psychopaths. There are those very couple of instances where their sorta supernatural. Films like Iron Man (2008) is grounded in reality, The Avengers too. Comic book films can no longer be campy unless, you want a Batman & Robin/Spider-Man 3 indecent. Comic book elitists are truly the most whiny, hypocritical fanboys, that are worse than PS3 fanboys like Pyro. If you want a comic book type film, then read a goddamn comic!

I think you miss the point of what I said. Lets take Nolan's Batman for example, because Nolan made Batman very realistic you couldn't use most of the villains like Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Killer Croc, etc. Same goes for the Justice League, you can't use them in Nolan's Batman universe either. Also Ra's al Ghul is a supernatural character. He would have come back from the dead by now thanks to the Lazarus Pit. And you out of all people should know how awesome it would have been if the Lazarus Pit appeared in The Dark Knight Rises. Am I wrong?

Point is, when you try to make things realistic you're only holding back any true potential that that series has. Just look at what Marvel is doing with their movies. They're not trying to copy Nolan's realism, and they're kicking DC's ass.

Mecha wrote:

Just look at what Marvel is doing with their movies. They're not trying to copy Nolan's realism, and they're kicking DC's ass.

News to me.

They can use them, it's just that they need to find a logical way to ground them in reality. Just like what they did with Ra's in Batman Begins and Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The Pit in The Dark Knight Rises was a reference/nod to the Lazarus Pit. The Avengers was grounded in reality, Man of Steel will be grounded in reality. It's all about explaining how it could be possible through logic. Yes, they are; All of their films were grounded in reality in someway, even The Amazing Spider-Man.

I'm sorry, but as much as I love Nolan's Batman films, Ra's al Ghul and Bane were dumb down. Those characters had way more to give, but instead they just felt wasted. And if Nolan couldn't completely handle those characters, what makes you think he can do the same with Mr. Freeze, Clayface, and Killer Croc? There's nothing realistic about those characters at all.

Yes, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers use some realism (not really though -_-), but Nolan's Batman films tried too hard to be realistic.

Not going to lie though, the way how they use the Pit in The Dark Knight Rises was clever.

Let's just hope that next years Man of Steel won't feature Superman aka Clark Kent and his genius disguise being a pair of glasses

^man of steel is gonna kick ass

Mecha wrote:

I'm sorry, but as much as I love Nolan's Batman films, Ra's al Ghul and Bane were dumb down. Those characters had way more to give, but instead they just felt wasted. And if Nolan couldn't completely handle those characters, what makes you think he can do the same with Mr. Freeze, Clayface, and Killer Croc? There's nothing realistic about those characters at all.

Yes, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers use some realism (not really though -_-), but Nolan's Batman films tried too hard to be realistic.

You have to remember, these films are Nolan's interpretation of these characters in a real world setting. Ra's is interpreted very well, instead of actually being immortal, he puts a fake in his place. Bane is also interpreted amazing, some kind of pain killer instead of Venom, and he's strong and fast. He handled both characters well. Mr. Freeze he could have done, but his version of Mr. Freeze with elements of comic book Freeze. Clayface and Killer Croc are too far fetched to be done in a real world setting. This is Nolan Batman, these are "What if Batman was real?" story. I give Nolan prop for giving us his interpretation of Batman and not just tried pleasing elitists with a copy and paste story from a comic like all comic elitist seem to bitch about wanting.

Marc Webb didn't handle Spider-Man well, his jokes fell flat and at times was annoying. The villain was so boring and unintimidating. It was all over the place, it wanted to be dark, but also show Spider-mans funny side and it failed so bad. Look at the Avengers featurette and Wheadon is talking about how he wanted to ground it in realism. Iron Man (2008) was grounded in realism, and no one bitched. Realistic =/= Dark.

WTF are you talking about? Your argument is very flawed.

Clayface and Killer Croc are too far fetched, but not Loki?

The first Avengers comic book was more realistic compared to the movie itself to be honest. Just because a director says they use some realism doesn't mean it's a realistic movie. There is absolutely nothing realistic about The Avengers at all. Whedon didn't try to reinvent the characters like Nolan did, The Avengers captured the tone of the comic books almost perfectly.

Also why are you bashing The Amazing Spider-Man and praising The Avengers? We're talking about realism here, not which movie is better. Plus I find it funny how you bash The Amazing Spider-Man for it's jokes when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man had way more jokes that just felt flat. Not to mention, Garfield play the character more accurately, yet you got the nerve to bash him and defend Raimi's Spider-Man. Typical Raimi fanboy.

The first Iron Man movie was realistic, but if you read the comics there's nothing realistic about Iron Man at all. They made it so realistic that they had to get a lame villain like the Iron Monger for Iron Man to fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Iron Monger. Iron Man has way better villains than him, but because they're trying to make Iron Man realistic you couldn't use them. Do you see the point of my rant now?

Quote :

Clayface and Killer Croc are too far fetched, but not Loki?

When did I compare them? Clayface and Killer Croc are too far fetched for Nolan's Batman Universe.

Quote :

The first Avengers comic book was more realistic compared to the movie itself to be honest. Just because a director says they use some realism doesn't mean it's a realistic movie. There is absolutely nothing realistic about The Avengers at all. Whedon didn't try to reinvent the characters like Nolan did, The Avengers captured the tone of the comic books almost perfectly.

I never said The Avengers was realistic. Just that it's grounded in it, which means it uses logic about how it could happen. Never said Whedon tried reinventing them either. I agree on the last part.

Quote :

Also why are you bashing The Amazing Spider-Man and praising The Avengers? We're talking about realism here, not which movie is better. Plus I find it funny how you bash The Amazing Spider-Man for it's jokes when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man had way more jokes that just felt flat. Not to mention, Garfield play the character more accurately, yet you got the nerve to bash him and defend Raimi's Spider-Man. Typical Raimi fanboy.

Never compared The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man. The character sure was accurate, because Peter has always been a rebel, skater, who can stand up against his bully before he gains his powers.... so accurate Typical Comic book elitist.

Quote :

The first Iron Man movie was realistic, but if you read the comics there's nothing realistic about Iron Man at all. They made it so realistic that they had to get a lame villain like the Iron Monger for Iron Man to fight. Nobody gives a shit about the Iron Monger. Iron Man has way better villains than him, but because they're trying to make Iron Man realistic you couldn't use them. Do you see the point of my rant now?

Yes, you're so right Mecha. That's why it's the highest rated film from the Marvel Phase One, even higher than The Avengers. :truestory:

yonny616 wrote:

Never compared The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man. The character sure was accurate, because Peter has always been a rebel, skater, who can stand up against his bully before he gains his powers.... so accurate Typical Comic book elitist.

Yeah you're right. Tobey is obviously the better Spider-Man. Because we all know Spider-Man is an emo crybaby with no sense of humor. So true to the character.

yonny616 wrote:

Yes, you're so right Mecha. That's why it's the highest rated film from the Marvel Phase One, even higher than The Avengers.
:truestory:

Never said Iron Man was a bad film. What I meant was you couldn't continue that kind of realism with the sequels.

Mecha wrote:

yonny616 wrote:

Yes, you're so right Mecha. That's why it's the highest rated film from the Marvel Phase One, even higher than The Avengers.
:truestory:

Never said Iron Man was a bad film. What I meant was you couldn't continue that kind of realism with the sequels.

Yes you can.

I meant you can't keep ignoring the supernatural elements like the first Iron Man film did.

Mecha wrote:

I meant you can't keep ignoring the supernatural elements like the first Iron Man film did.

Tony Stark being rich is supernatural?

Mecha, you're not going to like this.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/02/christopher-nolan-taking-naturalistic-approach-to-superman

Mecha wrote:

Yeah you're right. Tobey is obviously the better Spider-Man. Because we all know Spider-Man is an emo crybaby with no sense of humor. So true to the character.

Did I mention him at all? emo crybaby? I don't remember him being and emo in Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man 2.

Mecha wrote:

Never said Iron Man was a bad film. What I meant was you couldn't continue that kind of realism with the sequels.

They can. Iron Man isn't all fantasy like Superman or Thor, they can give him the realistic approach because he's like Batman in a sense, he uses his resources to fight crime. He doesn't have these overblown powers like other comic heroes.

@Techno They're'taking a naturalistic approach, but in the same sense as Batman. "What if Superman was real?" approach. It's about how would the world react to Superman. I bet your ass not everyone would welcome him with open arms, especially the governments.

Maybe not so much the first Spider-Man film, but definitely the second. Spider-Man would never be that obsessed over a girl he had no serious relationship with in the first place. Spider-Man from the comics had way more girl problems, yet he was still able to have a sense of humor and not be so depressed all the time to the point of losing his power.

Iron Man may not be all fantasy like Thor, but he is nowhere realistic as Batman. You forget that Iron Man's arch-enemy is a Chinese guy with 10 magical rings and material arts skills that can cause serious damage to his armor. Plus Iron Man basically became a cyborg in the comics a few years ago.

Mecha wrote:

Maybe not so much the first Spider-Man film, but definitely the second. Spider-Man would never be that obsessed over a girl he had no serious relationship with in the first place. Spider-Man from the comics had way more girl problems, yet he was still able to have a sense of humor and not be so depressed all the time to the point of losing his power.

Iron Man may not be all fantasy like Thor, but he is nowhere realistic as Batman. You forget that Iron Man's arch-enemy is a Chinese guy with 10 magical rings and material arts skills that can cause serious damage to his armor. Plus Iron Man basically became a cyborg in the comics a few years ago.

He wasn't depressed all the time, he had a sense of humor. Peter has always been a emotional character, he's always having conflicting emotions on whether he wants to be Spider-Man or not.

You forget that most of Iron Man's rogue gallery consists of guys in suits and so far they've used two (Iron Monger, Whiplash). Man with ten magic rings isn't realistic, but neither is Ra's Al Ghul, an immortal. Both Iron Man and Batman has a fantasy side and a realistic side in their rouge galleries.

Iron Monger and Whiplash are lame in the comics. That's the problem I always had with Iron Man growing up, his rogue gallery is nowhere near as good as Batman, Spider-Man, hell even Superman. The Mandarin is the only good villain Iron Man really has. Iron Monger isn't even a big part of the Iron Man lore, and they actually had to mix two villains from the comics just to create Whiplash. That's why these characters got killed off, because they were never that important to begin with.

Most of Iron Man's villains may be guys in armor, but most of them take orders from the Mandarin in the comics. Same thing is happening in the films as well. Who's idea do you think it was to lock up Tony Stark in that cave? Most people think it was Iron Monger, which may be partly true, but the Mandarin definitely has some thing to do with it as well. Also in case you didn't know, Whiplash actually works for the Mandarin in Iron Man 2.

So basically, the Mandarin is responsible for everything what happen in the Iron Man trilogy. So Iron Man was never suppose to be realistic in the first place. Sure Batman has Ra's Al Ghul, which took away his immorality. But you can NOT take away the Mandarin's ten magic rings.

Oh and as for Spider-Man, Garfield had a better sense of humor and wasn't as emo as Tobey. Spider-Man may have not been a skater, but at least Garfield was closer to the character than Tobey ever was.

Never said they were good villains compared to the Mandarin. Comparing Batman's, Spider-Man's and Superman's rogue galleries to Iron Man's is like comparing the graphics of the SNES to a PS3.

They don't have to make them like that, they can make them their own instead of being Mandarin's puppets. I knew it wasn't Iron Monger who locked him up in a cave, Iron Monger wanted him dead. The Ten Rings (Reference to Mandarin) found him more valuable alive. How'd you figured out Whiplash worked for Mandarin in Iron Man 2? I thought it was all about vengeance.

Well then in that case look at Killer Croc. You can't take away his lizard away, or clayface.