Can superheroes ever truly be realistic?

[superduperman]

The other day I saw the Dark Knight trilogy collection in the store and it made me realize something: Superheroes are inherently ridiculous concepts by nature no matter how realistic you try to make them. If the franchise had gone on any longer, they would have had to break out the more silly villains defeating the purpose of the "realistic" tone of the movies. There's a reason we aren't up to Dark Knight 5 by now: He'd be fighting Killer Croc and Mr. Freeze again. No, it probably wouldn't be Arnold in the suit but it would still be making an appearance none the less. Thus everything Nolan was trying to achieve would go out the window. This is true of any super-hero no matter how realistic they try to make him. Look at what Byrne did to Superman. He made him as realistic as you possibly could and it ended up stripping him of a lot of his support system. Krypton was a wasteland long before it blew up, his childhood was normal (read: boring) and half his supporting cast was either thrown out (Krypto, Supergirl, the Legion) or changed to completely different characters (Lex Luthor, the Kents). The problem with this is that sooner or later, someone like Mxyzptlk shows up and all of the sudden a flying dog with a cape doesn't seem so ridiculous after all. There's no way to keep it truly "realistic".

David Mazzucchelli went into this somewhat at the end of Year One. You can do a realistic story up to a point but the moment Bat-Mite shows up, it lessens the believability of the realistic story somewhat. Or, to quote Mazzucchelli himself "The more realistic super-heroes become, the less believable they are". Mike Grell made Green Arrow realistic almost to the point of taking him out of the mainstream DC universe altogether. But Superman was still flying around out there somewhere. The trick arrows were still a part of his history. Ditto the Arrow TV show. When it debuted two years ago, he was the most realistic take anyone had done to a super-hero. Even more so than the Dark Knight movies IMHO. But Green Arrow doesn't have a huge rogues gallery to begin with so he became kind of a stand in for Batman. Huntress, Ras Al Ghul and the League of Assassins, Deadshot, all made appearances and pretty soon he was living in the same universe as the Flash and the Atom and, depending on how the whole Supergirl TV show pans out, possibly Superman. Hawkgirl is going to be part of a spinoff show this fall.

Ten years after the Byrne reboot, the writers of the Superman comics were trying to find ways to force SA elements back into the comics. They ran out of ideas because they ran out of toys to play with. The Daredevil show is really good but it still takes place in the same universe as the movies and again, how many enemies does he have they can tap into without bringing the rest of the Marvel universe in to play with him? I hear Punisher is on tap to show up next season. Sony ran into this problem with the Spider-Man franchise. They wanted to do spin-offs but there was no one to spin-off to besides villains. The idea that a number of super-powered beings with unrelated origins showing up at the same time is not the most believable concept to begin with. The X-Men are about the only ones who can pull it off and that's only because people are born with powers there. And most of them aren't believable. Guy who heals from anything and is semi-immortal, not the most unbelievable concept. Guy whose skin turns to steel, not so much.

The system is set up so that you have to live in a universe with other heroes and over-the-top villains in order to stay interesting. Nobody wants to see Superman or Batman just catching burglars and purse snatchers all the time. I'm not trying to bash super-heroes; I love comics and super-heroes, but there seems to be a push to try to make them more and more "realistic" and it just seems like you can only go so far before you realize, hey, they're just a bunch of grown adults running around in masks. I don't know if you'd qualify this as a rant or what but it was something I thought about the other day and wanted to get off my chest.

[ed2962]

I dunno. I think you might be confusing a serious tone or more "adult" with realistic. With many of the examples you gave, the creators never pretended to be doing something "realistic."

[Savage Savant]

I don't read superheroes, sci-fi & fantasy fiction for realism. It's all a suspension of disbelief. I read these stories because I enjoy discovering the adventures of larger-than-life characters & understanding their personalities & abilities as well as how they react to certain situations or how they use their abilities to solve their problems as well as their motivations among other things. If I want realism, I'll watch a documentary or read a non-fiction novel regarding an event or a biography, etc.

[Lee Stone]

The benefit of comics is that anything can be drawn on paper.
So you can make them as realistic as you want. Or not.
And DC and Marvel are both shared universes built on fantastic science, aliens, magic, deus ex machina storytelling and atomic monsters.

Sandman Mystery Theatre would be a realistic approach, as would Batman Year One.
But realistically, both characters would've been killed within two years of their careers.

One of the most realistic characters, James Bond, partakes in some of the most unrealistic adventures that are full of improbable events and unrealistic outcomes.

I understand that the people in suits think Batman (and the other heroes) would be more interesting to general audiences if they just remove the costume, call him Bruce Wayne and have him fight gang members and mobsters.
But then he wouldn't be Batman anymore.
It would be Die Hard with a millionaire.

If readers wanted that, the top selling comics would be Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Kickboxer, The Expendables and The Transporter.
Not Batman, Justice League, X-Men, Avengers and Spider-man.

[quinnzel]

I think the thing about superheroes, as the OP and others said, is that superheroes are inherently unrealistic. They're superpowered, are almost supernatural, and carry (in some cases) an almost godlike air about them. So in that respect, superheroes are, by definition, not realistic. They're fantastic departures from what is normal and known.

That being said, superheroes still have very human elements about them. And take superheroes that aren't technically "super" such as Batman. I mean, yeah, a billionaire with a Bat Cave who grapples his way through a huge city taking down bad guys isn't exactly realistic, but at the end of the day he's still human (well, with the exception of Bat-God). And most superheroes, even the invulnerable and alien ones like Superman, are still portrayed as having very human emotions. In that respect, most superhero stories have very realistic elements.

[blackbolt396]

No, that's goes against what a superhero is.

[byrd156]

Superheros aren't supposed to be realistic, that's kinda the point. Sure there can be realism to the stories but it can only go so far.

[Powerboy]

Realism doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

I had a friend who laughed anytime you used the word "realistic" to apply to anything that took so much as one step out of the real world. But we are usually talking about character realism.

Even at that, most fiction is unrealistic no matter how much of an illusion of realism it has.

But getting back to definitions. For instance, you say that the DK trilogy was realistic but, had it gone on, they would have to fall back on "unrealistic" characters like Mr. Freeze. As opposed to "realistic" characters like the Joker, Ras al Ghul, the Scarecrow and Bane? But what makes Mr. Freeze more unrealistic than the Joker? That he has a stronger science fiction element with the armored cold suit? As opposed to one man in a clown costume bringing the whole city police department and the entire mob to their knees and whipping stuff out of I don't even want to think where magically? Mr. Freeze is no more unrealistic than the Joker. It's just you have one mindset and someone else has a different mindset regarding what is more unrealistic.

I think there is also a tendency to equate dark with realistic. Hence, say, the Ledger Joker would be perceived as more realistic than the Romero Joker. Does either of them really have believable real world motives? Or any true origin to explain who they are? Or does one just have a better illusion of realism than the other?

I like light and I like dark but, when you get right down to it, this is a story about a guy who deals with the horror of his life by dressing up as a giant bat and running around beating up street criminals. "Realistic", if there is a realistic, would be a guy pumping billions into making sure the people he wants get elected and using his money and influence to change things. But that's not a story we'd be interested in month after month.

I honestly think the difference between the Dark Knight and Batman '66 is that Batman '66 winks at the audience and says, "Hey, we all know this is ridiculous." The Dark Knight keeps a straight face and a somber tone so we don't think about the fact that it's ridiculous. But I think one reason we- or at least I- enjoy Batman so much, even dark Batman, is that it's not "Schindler's List". No matter how seriously it is presented, we can smile and enjoy it because it is so totally not real, just the pretense or illusion of realism we want.

[colonyofcells]

Even a ridiculous Batman is probably more realistic than some guy from another planet who is able to have sex with human females.

[Jim Kelly]

But I think one reason we- or at least I- enjoy Batman so much, even dark Batman, is that it's not "Schindler's List".

Little known fact: BATMAN BEGINS originally was going to be SCHINDLER'S LIST 2--but Liam Neeson didn't want to repeat himself.

[superduperman]

Realism doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

I had a friend who laughed anytime you used the word "realistic" to apply to anything that took so much as one step out of the real world. But we are usually talking about character realism.

Even at that, most fiction is unrealistic no matter how much of an illusion of realism it has.

But getting back to definitions. For instance, you say that the DK trilogy was realistic but, had it gone on, they would have to fall back on "unrealistic" characters like Mr. Freeze. As opposed to "realistic" characters like the Joker, Ras al Ghul, the Scarecrow and Bane? But what makes Mr. Freeze more unrealistic than the Joker? That he has a stronger science fiction element with the armored cold suit? As opposed to one man in a clown costume bringing the whole city police department and the entire mob to their knees and whipping stuff out of I don't even want to think where magically? Mr. Freeze is no more unrealistic than the Joker. It's just you have one mindset and someone else has a different mindset regarding what is more unrealistic.

I think there is also a tendency to equate dark with realistic. Hence, say, the Ledger Joker would be perceived as more realistic than the Romero Joker. Does either of them really have believable real world motives? Or any true origin to explain who they are? Or does one just have a better illusion of realism than the other?

I like light and I like dark but, when you get right down to it, this is a story about a guy who deals with the horror of his life by dressing up as a giant bat and running around beating up street criminals. "Realistic", if there is a realistic, would be a guy pumping billions into making sure the people he wants get elected and using his money and influence to change things. But that's not a story we'd be interested in month after month.

I honestly think the difference between the Dark Knight and Batman '66 is that Batman '66 winks at the audience and says, "Hey, we all know this is ridiculous." The Dark Knight keeps a straight face and a somber tone so we don't think about the fact that it's ridiculous. But I think one reason we- or at least I- enjoy Batman so much, even dark Batman, is that it's not "Schindler's List". No matter how seriously it is presented, we can smile and enjoy it because it is so totally not real, just the pretense or illusion of realism we want.

This is a very good point. Mr. Freeze may not seem realistic in terms of his devices but, unlike someone like the Joker, he has a believable motivation for what he does. To save the life of his wife. I think the best description of the Joker came in, of all places, one of the Adventures of Superman issues where he meets the Joker for the first time. He points out that he seems like a generic idea of a badass as opposed to someone who has a real motivation for what they do. What a little kid would think is cool. Even Batman never told him off like that. Joker isn't a character, he's an archetype. The generic bad guy with the mysterious origin and unknown motives whose supposed to be scary for some undefined reason.

This is also one of the reasons why I think the constant reboots sort of serve no purpose other than to drum up short term sales. If all you do is pit someone like Superman up against the alien-of-the-month anyway, the reboot didn't really accomplish anything. Except now you've put artificial limitations on what you can do with the character because you removed some of the elements that have been built into the character before said reboot. He can't come home to Lois anymore or reflect on his adventures as Superboy in Smallville. Or whichever version you prefer. Even after the Byrne reboot, most of this villains were from space or magic or whatever. He was essentially back to fighting all the same types of things he was fighting before only now less powered. Realism isn't just about pitting characters up against things found in the real world, it's also about how the characters are handled. Before the Byrne reboot, one of the main rules was that the comics still had to be made for children. So while Spider-Man was engaged to be married, Superman wasn't even allowed to actually take his relationship with Lois anywhere.

One of the most realistic super-hero comics on the shelf today is Batman Earth One. He has no car, he has no super-computer, he doesn't technically even have a cave. He didn't travel around the world to learn every martial art in the world, he was trained at home by Alfred. He also isn't a detective. And fans are divided over whether or not they like him. He is no "Bat-God". So in some ways, you can't win. With characters like Batman, there is a push to see how realistic they can make him but if they do that, you have to take away a lot of the elements that fans enjoy. No one can spend their teens and early twenties going around the world learning all there is to know about martial arts and crime solving and come home and blow their inheritance on fancy gadgets that constantly need to be replaced going out every night and solving every crime in the city on only three hours sleep.

[BatmanJones]

This is a very good point. Mr. Freeze may not seem realistic in terms of his devices but, unlike someone like the Joker, he has a believable motivation for what he does. To save the life of his wife. I think the best description of the Joker came in, of all places, one of the Adventures of Superman issues where he meets the Joker for the first time. He points out that he seems like a generic idea of a badass as opposed to someone who has a real motivation for what they do. What a little kid would think is cool. Even Batman never told him off like that. Joker isn't a character, he's an archetype. The generic bad guy with the mysterious origin and unknown motives whose supposed to be scary for some undefined reason.

That sounds like a pretty poor description of The Joker actually. That he doesn't have reasons for what he does is the whole point. It's the "joke." To The Joker the world is absurd and to act otherwise is silly. ("Why so serious" is a perfect and meaningful tagline for him.) Superman may have thought he was talking down to The Joker in that issue but The Joker talks down to that very idea with his every act. There is nothing generic about him. Samuel Beckett (the real one) could have created him. Motivation is a joke to The Joker. It's a rare world view shared in spirit by some of history's heaviest and most respected 'madmen.'

[Powerboy]

This is a very good point. Mr. Freeze may not seem realistic in terms of his devices but, unlike someone like the Joker, he has a believable motivation for what he does. To save the life of his wife. I think the best description of the Joker came in, of all places, one of the Adventures of Superman issues where he meets the Joker for the first time. He points out that he seems like a generic idea of a badass as opposed to someone who has a real motivation for what they do. What a little kid would think is cool. Even Batman never told him off like that. Joker isn't a character, he's an archetype. The generic bad guy with the mysterious origin and unknown motives whose supposed to be scary for some undefined reason.

This is also one of the reasons why I think the constant reboots sort of serve no purpose other than to drum up short term sales. If all you do is pit someone like Superman up against the alien-of-the-month anyway, the reboot didn't really accomplish anything. Except now you've put artificial limitations on what you can do with the character because you removed some of the elements that have been built into the character before said reboot. He can't come home to Lois anymore or reflect on his adventures as Superboy in Smallville. Or whichever version you prefer. Even after the Byrne reboot, most of this villains were from space or magic or whatever. He was essentially back to fighting all the same types of things he was fighting before only now less powered. Realism isn't just about pitting characters up against things found in the real world, it's also about how the characters are handled. Before the Byrne reboot, one of the main rules was that the comics still had to be made for children. So while Spider-Man was engaged to be married, Superman wasn't even allowed to actually take his relationship with Lois anywhere.

One of the most realistic super-hero comics on the shelf today is Batman Earth One. He has no car, he has no super-computer, he doesn't technically even have a cave. He didn't travel around the world to learn every martial art in the world, he was trained at home by Alfred. He also isn't a detective. And fans are divided over whether or not they like him. He is no "Bat-God". So in some ways, you can't win. With characters like Batman, there is a push to see how realistic they can make him but if they do that, you have to take away a lot of the elements that fans enjoy. No one can spend their teens and early twenties going around the world learning all there is to know about martial arts and crime solving and come home and blow their inheritance on fancy gadgets that constantly need to be replaced going out every night and solving every crime in the city on only three hours sleep.

What? He gets three hours of sleep? Per night? No wonder he's in such a bad mood all the time.

After making my previous post, I felt I overstated it a bit. After all, almost any fiction that steps one foot outside of reality can be targeted with, "Well, it's inherently unrealistic so why even try to be realistic?" That kind of argument can be thrown at Star Trek or Robert Heinlein or Hamlet, for that matter. So I'll take a step back. There's nothing wrong with presenting something seriously and with as much realism as you can while still maintaining the concept. In the case of Batman, you just have to accept that dressing up like a bat is a valid and not completely insane way of dealing with grief. In fact, it may even lend to the drama to imply that maybe he is just a little bit crazy- just a little bit. You have to accept that he can get all these gadgets and that he can really pull off this secret identity, dodge bullets without having any powers, etc. I think something can be "realistic" (in quote marks to show you don't really mean 100% realistic) within the stretches necessary to have the concept to begin with.

Interesting point is that, in "Gotham", they gave the Joker a real origin and motives and a lot of people didn't like that because they want the unreality of his being this mysterious archetype about whom nothing is certain, not even his motives. I wonder if he was originally supposed to be scary because he was a clown and many children don't find clowns funny but scary.

Regarding reboots, hard reboots, yes, I think it is mostly short-term sales. Soft reboots are a bit different. I think some of the intent is that it is harder to take characters in certain directions if you really maintain their continuity. Would a guy whose formative years were the 1920's and who started his carer in 1938-9 really think the way current Superman, Batman, and so on, think? Would they have modern concepts of social norms, etc. Even when you just update and say it happened more recently, I think there is a desire to modernize. Also, the intent is to free up the characters. For instance, now Superman has something going with Wonder Woman I guess. I am trying to avoid using the word "Fanboy" here but that sort of relationship just strikes me as glorified fan fiction. Eventually, the whole Clark/ Lois relationship will have to be rehashed to get things back on track after a few years of the fling mentality for sales.

I guess I need to check out Batman Earth-One. One of my favorite Batman stories from the late 1980's was one where he threw a punch at a street criminal and the guy blocked or where he threw a batarang and missed or took a punch from a street criminal. I remember another where he fought a mildly superhuman guy and got stomped. To me, this is the essence of the character, the whole concept, a real guy with no powers doing his best with intelligence and luck and resourcefulness. This is the Batman I love, the guy who has a real edge and who is maybe superhuman enough to take out multiple opponents most of the time but he's not always ten steps ahead of everybody else or invincible. I love him when he's not some annoying super god action movie farce like Rambo or Commando. One of the things I liked with the DK movies was that he wasn't incapable of a mistake or of being physically beaten. He didn't dodge bullets. He wore armor, etc. I know this can't work in a team adventure where he's up against superhuman stuff and surrounded by lightspeed moving, planet-tossing pals. But in his solo adventures, this is the Batman I prefer.

[mr_crisp]

Not really. Life in a superhero world would be pretty depressing with cities getting destroyed all the time. Who would want to live in a city knowing that they could become homeless at any time due to superhero fights.