Should Batman's world start off grounded and become fantastical, or vice versa?

[Vakanai]

A little from column a, a little from column b. I don't think I can improve on what's already been said here, so I'll just say that I like a mix.

[sifighter]

I have to ask, but what are people’s idea of fantastical, I’m seeing a lot of different ones. Because my idea of fantastical is the weird stuff, like Zero Year, the magic black market anti-lasso of truth, learning magic from Zatara, The Hellbat armor, Jarro, the Batman universe story where he goes to Thanagar and the old west, and etc., not just some wild villains like Clayface, Killer Croc, or Poison Ivy.

I like those weird parts because it reminds me that yes Batman is a semi-normal man but he lives and operates in a world far different from ours, really embracing the dc universe.

[bat39]

I have to ask, but what are people’s idea of fantastical, I’m seeing a lot of different ones. Because my idea of fantastical is the weird stuff, like Zero Year, the magic black market anti-lasso of truth, learning magic from Zatara, The Hellbat armor, Jarro, the Batman universe story where he goes to Thanagar and the old west, and etc., not just some wild villains like Clayface, Killer Croc, or Poison Ivy.

I like those weird parts because it reminds me that yes Batman is a semi-normal man but he lives and operates in a world far different from ours, really embracing the dc universe.

Good point.

I really think its a mix of a bunch of things - plot, tone, concepts. And its really pretty relativistic.

If you consider the costumed villains, I think it makes a difference whether they first show up during Year 1 or during Year 2. Or if they're already around in some form before Batman puts on the cowl. If Bruce becomes Batman in a world where the Red Hood Gang is already running around, then there's arguably a bit more 'fantastical' than a Batman who starts off in a world where the biggest 'villain' in Gotham is Carmine Falcone.

The same villain can also in different circumstances be 'grounded' or 'fantastical'. Take the Riddler. He could either be criminal mastermind in a green suit with an obsession for leaving clues. Or he could be a terrorist who turns Gotham into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

I also think a lot of people (I'm probably guilty of this as well) interpret 'grounded' vs 'fantastical' as 'dark' vs 'light' - there is a lot of truth to that, but it doesn't always 100% line up. Though it does if you take the argument that 'fantastical' simply refers to the fantasy of a superhero world (and the relative light-heartedness of that approach) as compared to 'grounded' reality that deconstructs or rejects the superhero fantasy.

I would argue that as far as origin/early years stories go, Year One and Earth One (at least Vol 1. - haven't read Vol 2. yet) are pretty firmly on the grounded side, with Matt Reeves' The Batman being uber-grounded. Stuff like The Long Halloween, The Man Who Laughs and a lot of LOTDK build up on that same groundedness, while adding the odd fantastical element. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both on the grounded side, though Begins has some fantastical elements.

Gotham has a grounded aesthetic but leans towards the fantastical IMO since you have a Gotham where villains galore before Bruce even puts on the cowl (even actual super villains with powers I'm told, though I haven't watched much beyond Season 1). Zero Year is pretty fantastical, probably the most 'fantastical' Batman origin yet. Burton's Batman is an odd fish to place - its kinda grounded, but has an element of a dark fantasy to it (but I guess that's just down to Burton's filmmaking).

Last but not least, I'd argue the original Kane/Finger stories started off relatively grounded but moved pretty fast into fantastical territory, with vampires and monster men and hallucinatory flowers.

[mib86]

A bit of both; Personally I am for the "Morrison approach": everything happened even the most imaginative and crazy things, Batman has dealt with them all in the past and may face them in the future.
Even if some of those adventures are not exacty what they seem...

[Jim Kelly]

How about this, when he's in Gotham City, the criminal element is grounded. When he leaves Gotham City, he comes up against the super-heroes and super-villains that are the stock and trade of other D.C. locales.

My first love is the comics of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Batman routinely was solving street level crimes and only once every few months did he encounter a costumed villian or even more rarely a super-freak (except in his team-up adventures with other super-heroes). And that's how I prefer to see him--he's a detective helping the police to clean up the city's criminal element--who only sometimes has to deal with an idiot in a costume that wants to test him.

[gregpersons]

I've given this a bit more thought and wanted to expand on this idea. It was asked earlier, what counts as fantastical? And it was then answered with good examples. It reminded me of one of the words that sticks out to me for Batman when you peel it back -- "Weird." It stuck out to me more than anything whenever I first read the original Detective 27 in a reprint of some kind, I thought it was such a striking choice -- "Weird avenger of the night." That's Bill Finger's prints all over it, IMO... "weird." Then a few decades later, Stan Lee also jumps on "weird" and creates all of Marvel with that inspiration. "Weird." It's weird because you think of how much play the words "Dark" and "Avenger" and "Night" and even "Knight" or "Detective" to the character's core -- when we're talking about grounded/fantastical, I think the status quo view of it is that Batman doesn't get much more fantastical than "avenger" stories, sometimes on a fantastical scale. There's a shot in the ending of The Dark Knight, when Batman is first running away from Gordon, we see him run-limping in the distance... he looks weird. It is weird. I love it.

Has "weird" lost all meaning now that I've repeated it so many times? What is weird? Even if it's just "different" then Batman can't get weird enough for me. The weird stuff is the good stuff. Morrison is the best example of this. Burton/Hamm/Waters is also a wonderful example who gets underrated because he chose "weird" over "avenger" and "knight". I also am coming around to the view that Snyder/Affleck is similarly underrated but does a better job of showing "weird."

Here's the weirdest thing. Think about how many writers make a great effort to make Batman seem NOT weird. The Nolan/Bale and the animated 'The Batman' and the Telltale and the Arkham games -- Wayne is definitely eccentric, but his "relatability" is played up. He's not exactly an "everyman", and he has flaws and quirks and his psychology is obviously always a big component. I'm not knocking this, or those examples; I love them. I'm saying that I think Batman is actually SO WEIRD that it takes a great effort to go that way, which has become the traditional superhero vision of the character. Ultimately the most fantastical element in all of the grounded stories is that Batman is actually not that weird, after all.

I would like to see the pendulum swing the other way a bit more. "Batman Universe" did a great job of this, I thought. Tom King's run did too. And I think the upcoming "The Batman" is going to be weird, I'm getting a Mad Max vibe off of it, and I'm here for that.

[bat39]

I've given this a bit more thought and wanted to expand on this idea. It was asked earlier, what counts as fantastical? And it was then answered with good examples. It reminded me of one of the words that sticks out to me for Batman when you peel it back -- "Weird." It stuck out to me more than anything whenever I first read the original Detective 27 in a reprint of some kind, I thought it was such a striking choice -- "Weird avenger of the night." That's Bill Finger's prints all over it, IMO... "weird." Then a few decades later, Stan Lee also jumps on "weird" and creates all of Marvel with that inspiration. "Weird." It's weird because you think of how much play the words "Dark" and "Avenger" and "Night" and even "Knight" or "Detective" to the character's core -- when we're talking about grounded/fantastical, I think the status quo view of it is that Batman doesn't get much more fantastical than "avenger" stories, sometimes on a fantastical scale. There's a shot in the ending of The Dark Knight, when Batman is first running away from Gordon, we see him run-limping in the distance... he looks weird. It is weird. I love it.

Has "weird" lost all meaning now that I've repeated it so many times? What is weird? Even if it's just "different" then Batman can't get weird enough for me. The weird stuff is the good stuff. Morrison is the best example of this. Burton/Hamm/Waters is also a wonderful example who gets underrated because he chose "weird" over "avenger" and "knight". I also am coming around to the view that Snyder/Affleck is similarly underrated but does a better job of showing "weird."

Here's the weirdest thing. Think about how many writers make a great effort to make Batman seem NOT weird. The Nolan/Bale and the animated 'The Batman' and the Telltale and the Arkham games -- Wayne is definitely eccentric, but his "relatability" is played up. He's not exactly an "everyman", and he has flaws and quirks and his psychology is obviously always a big component. I'm not knocking this, or those examples; I love them. I'm saying that I think Batman is actually SO WEIRD that it takes a great effort to go that way, which has become the traditional superhero vision of the character. Ultimately the most fantastical element in all of the grounded stories is that Batman is actually not that weird, after all.

I would like to see the pendulum swing the other way a bit more. "Batman Universe" did a great job of this, I thought. Tom King's run did too. And I think the upcoming "The Batman" is going to be weird, I'm getting a Mad Max vibe off of it, and I'm here for that.

That's...an interesting take on it.

Certainly, there was a weirdness inherent in Batman right from Day 1. Stuff like the giant typewriters and other giant-size stuff are definitely 'weird'. As are vampires and monster men. And frankly even villains like the Joker and Penguin are 'weird'...its just that we've now gotten so used to them that they don't seem weird (also over the decades, we've become used to 'grounded' takes on these characters that have turned the Joker into a homicidal maniac and the Penguin into a Mob boss).

I'd argue the effort to take the weirdness out of Batman's world began in the 60's with the 'New Look', was in full-swing through the 70's, and by the time we got Year One, it had pretty much been complete. The weirdness is inherent in the very concept of Batman and Gotham of course, but the more grounded storytelling has largely tried to de-emphasize it - with some exceptions.

Morrison of course brought the weirdness back by referencing the weird Golden Age and Silver Age stuff - building his entire run around one of the weirder stories of the 60's - 'Robin Dies at Dawn'. Snyder has leaned towardd weirdness as well with his whole "Batman clones himself to continue his endless war on crime" concept, not to mention stuff like Dionysium and the Joker potentially being an immortal myth who haunted Gotham forever.

I'd disagree with you that Matt Reeves' film looks to be bringing back the weirdness - it looks to me like its the most grounded live-action take on Batman ever. But you may be right in its take on Bruce Wayne's psychology presenting him as 'weird'.