Can superheroes ever truly be realistic?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Does it matter? Really?

[colonyofcells]

Movies and tv usually try to be more realistic by reducing the powers of the superheroes. In reality, people gain power mainly via technology so both Batman and Iron Man are quite realistic. With advances in biotech, tinkering with genes to give powers is also quite realistic. Creating new forms of life like in the Jack Kirby Cadmus experiments is also quite realistic. Dc will be more realistic if it changes all of the origins to remove aliens from other planets.

[The Darknight Detective]

When the average person is talking about realism, they are talking about having the superheroes act realistically as if they were in a universe similar to our own, but with the addition of meta powers, technological advances, and magic.

[colonyofcells]

It is harder to give believable explanations why other planets would have aliens who look like humans. It is also harder to give explanations how space travel is possible or stargates are possible altho customers are already quite used to them in science fiction. The most common plot holes in science fiction about aliens is in trying to explain why aliens from far far away would have any interest in insignificant earthlings. For communication between aliens and earthlings, sometimes explanations are given such as Clark Kent learning english but often, the stories don't even bother to explain how the aliens can speak english.

[Jim Kelly]

You can train a dog to walk on its hindlegs, that doesn't mean a dog should walk on its hindlegs.

With movies and TV shows, because they use live actors and mainly physical locations, they are bound to reality in some sense.

Comic books are not literal reality. They are always figurative. This obsession with making stories and art that are true to the dimensions of reality is quite wrong headed. It's a representational form. It uses symbols to represent ideas and narratives.

But even movies and TV are representational. And the more that CGI and other technologies advance, the less need there is to conform to the dimensions of reality.

I think a more realistic Batman or Superman could be done in film. They could get rid of the costumes and the more absurd villains.

When I watch MURDOCH MYSTERIES it reminds me of the classic Batman detective stories from the early '70s (which rarely featured costumed villains). Murdoch is Batman, Crabtree is Robin, Dr. Ogden is Alfred, Dr. Grace is Batgirl and Inspector Brackenreid is Commissioner Gordon.

GILMORE GIRLS, I always fancied as an alternate reality from Wonder Woman. Lorelai is Wonder Woman, Rory is Wonder Girl, Emily is Hippolyta, Luke is Steve Trevor and Sookie is Etta Candy.

UNBREAKABLE is a kind of more realistic take on Superman.

[colonyofcells]

Superman is based on the Gladiator by Philip Wylie and the Gladiator is more realistic.
http://www.zonanegativa.com/imagenes/2012/04/3385.jpg

[Captain Smith]

There is a divide in the superhero genre.

One set of heroes have powers based on fictional physics and magic. One cornerstone of their existence is some kind of resistance to modern weaponry and injury. How their powers work is handled by suspension of disbelief. Yes, they can get stupid - such at the GLC books ignoring the basis of color perception and the origins of life. But having someone fly FTL - well, they just do.

The nonpowered types - Bats, Green Arrow, - they are all ridiculous. Despite bullet timing and dodging - they would be simply shot dead, suffer from concussions, etc.

However, if you read detective novels - they are ridiculous in the private eye genre. The Spensers, Elvis Coles, etc. are laughable in the real world.

[Jim Kelly]

In TV procedurals, it makes no realistic sense why the killer reveals what he did, why he did it and how he did it. But it makes sense for TV, because the viewers want to know all that information.

At least in the British series, BROADCHURCH, when the killer revealed his misdeeds, we got to see the trial in the second season where the lawyers could argue against admitting that into evidence.

[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.

[Darrin Kelley]

Even Realism isn't realistic.

I do like Morrison's suggestion of superhero fiction as being particularly suited to Social Realism, though.

I don't read comic books for political commentary. I read comics for escapism. To get away from the constant political spew that virtually every other form of media constantly pumps out.

[Professor Moriarty]

Superheroes are not supposed to be realistic.

[Vinsanity]

To an extent like what's around them or their daily lives but generally no.