Will the Nolaverse eventually no longer be considered 'dark'?

[bat39]

Something which occurred to me after reading this article:

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the...ovie-too-dark/

When they first released, the Nolan movies were regarded as the epitome of 'dark' and 'realistic' superhero cinema, which they certainly were...at the time. But now, between Joker and now The Batman, you kinda have to re-evaluate how 'dark' they really are in retrospect.

Beyond the psuedo-realistic aesthetic of the Nolanverse, these movies are actually pretty optimistic at their core. Its one of the few adaptations where Batman's mission actually succeeds. In about a year or so, he cleans up Gotham, not just through his own vigilante actions, but by giving a shot in the arm to Gotham's law enforcement machinery and justice system. Carmine Falcone gets taken down on Batman's first night! The people on the boats are ready to sacrifice their lives to save the other boat, proving the Joker's nihilism wrong. Gotham enjoys eight years of peace and prosperity, and things only get bad again because Bane shows up. The entire city rallies behind Batman when he returns to defeat Bane and the League of Shadows. And ultimately Bruce gets a happy ending - giving up the cowl, passing it on to a worthy successor, and running away with Selina.

Sure, there are some pretty dark moments - Rachel's death, Bruce spending close to a decade in isolation (well, actually more like three years...he spent the five years before that on an energy project - trying to help people in a different way), but ultimately, things work out for Gotham, for Bruce, for everyone. The good guys win, not just the battle on the streets, but the battle of ideas as well.

But Matt Reeves' upcoming film is a different beast altogether. Batman's been out there for a year and a half (longer than the Nolanverse Batman was ever active, if you think about it), and his experiment hasn't been working out too well, in Reeves' own terms. We're going to be exploring the deep-rooted corruption of Gotham, which apparently involves the Wayne family. The Riddler is a serial killer. Batman is pretty violent and brutal for its own sake...watch THAT moment in the trailer and tell me I'm wrong!

This comes on the heels of Batfleck, who's very much back now thanks to the Snyder cut and the Flash movie - a Batman who was so lost in cynicism and cruelty that he was prepared to kill Superman because he felt the latter posed an existential threat, and routinely 'branded' sex offenders, basically giving them a 'death sentence' once they got to prison.

And of course Joacquin Phoenix has given us a Joker who, as the article I've linked says, isn't so much a 'rock star' anarchist as a deeply disturbed violent psychopath broken down by a corrupt and uncaring world.

I haven't even talked about some of the stuff in the comics from the past decade...

So, in hindsight, will the Nolanverse not be considered so 'dark' anymore, compared to all the other Batman media coming out?

[Nite-Wing]

Nolan movies are dark depictions of Batman because they feature him killing and continue the morose tone of it not being "fun" to be Batman
The tim burton movies did this but they did not depict Batman as being anything less than a joy in this dark chaotic gotham.

Any depiction that creates the idea that being Batman isn't a positive or a net plus for Bruce the main character is not going to be regarded as optimistic

[Bad Witch]

Something which occurred to me after reading this article:

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the...ovie-too-dark/

When they first released, the Nolan movies were regarded as the epitome of 'dark' and 'realistic' superhero cinema, which they certainly were...at the time. But now, between Joker and now The Batman, you kinda have to re-evaluate how 'dark' they really are in retrospect.

Beyond the psuedo-realistic aesthetic of the Nolanverse, these movies are actually pretty optimistic at their core. Its one of the few adaptations where Batman's mission actually succeeds. In about a year or so, he cleans up Gotham, not just through his own vigilante actions, but by giving a shot in the arm to Gotham's law enforcement machinery and justice system. Carmine Falcone gets taken down on Batman's first night! The people on the boats are ready to sacrifice their lives to save the other boat, proving the Joker's nihilism wrong. Gotham enjoys eight years of peace and prosperity, and things only get bad again because Bane shows up. The entire city rallies behind Batman when he returns to defeat Bane and the League of Shadows. And ultimately Bruce gets a happy ending - giving up the cowl, passing it on to a worthy successor, and running away with Selina.

Sure, there are some pretty dark moments - Rachel's death, Bruce spending close to a decade in isolation (well, actually more like three years...he spent the five years before that on an energy project - trying to help people in a different way), but ultimately, things work out for Gotham, for Bruce, for everyone. The good guys win, not just the battle on the streets, but the battle of ideas as well.

But Matt Reeves' upcoming film is a different beast altogether. Batman's been out there for a year and a half (longer than the Nolanverse Batman was ever active, if you think about it), and his experiment hasn't been working out too well, in Reeves' own terms. We're going to be exploring the deep-rooted corruption of Gotham, which apparently involves the Wayne family. The Riddler is a serial killer. Batman is pretty violent and brutal for its own sake...watch THAT moment in the trailer and tell me I'm wrong!

This comes on the heels of Batfleck, who's very much back now thanks to the Snyder cut and the Flash movie - a Batman who was so lost in cynicism and cruelty that he was prepared to kill Superman because he felt the latter posed an existential threat, and routinely 'branded' sex offenders, basically giving them a 'death sentence' once they got to prison.

And of course Joacquin Phoenix has given us a Joker who, as the article I've linked says, isn't so much a 'rock star' anarchist as a deeply disturbed violent psychopath broken down by a corrupt and uncaring world.

I haven't even talked about some of the stuff in the comics from the past decade...

So, in hindsight, will the Nolanverse not be considered so 'dark' anymore, compared to all the other Batman media coming out?

I think they are. Despite the brilliant casting of heath ledger and allowing him to go all out the series is quite tame. Warner was a ball hair away from making aronofskis year one however I'm sure there were concerns about merchandise. Nolan was never going to go for an R rated film.

In the end Nolan was the comprimise. A good one. The world got serious batman films that are really good and Warner and DC got to move McDonald's cups. After cutting the knees off Snyder and Affleck solo film dc and Warner fell as s backwards in to joker and despite how incompetent they are, ie, trying to deter Phillips with a fifty million budget, Todd Phillips delivered a masterpiece which allowed them to see R rated superhero films can be done. We have todd Phillips to thank.

[Restingvoice]

I guess, since Burton Batman was considered dark for its time

[bat39]

Nolan movies are dark depictions of Batman because they feature him killing and continue the morose tone of it not being "fun" to be Batman
The tim burton movies did this but they did not depict Batman as being anything less than a joy in this dark chaotic gotham.

Any depiction that creates the idea that being Batman isn't a positive or a net plus for Bruce the main character is not going to be regarded as optimistic

I think the Nolan movies definitely showed Batman as a net positive to Gotham. Yes, for eight years the city hated Batman and thought of him as a murderer (though he still had his fans). But the audience knows that Batman cleaned up Gotham in a year, saved it from the Joker, and took the fall to ensure Harvey Dent's legacy - which was only really possible because his actions created the space for honest officials like Harvey and Gordon to clean up the city. And ultimately, Batman saves the entire city, goes down as a hero, and is honored as a martyr - which someone else picking up the mantle. Batman is depicted as an inspirational figure in the Nolanverse who effected change.

Yes, being Batman took a toll on Bruce, physically and mentally. But I wouldn't say that being Batman was a net negative for Bale's Bruce Wayne. It gives him a way to channelize his lingering anger and rage over his parent's death into a (somewhat) positive direction and serve Gotham like his parents did. And even though his alter ego was tarnished as a murderer, he could retire knowing that his mission had succeeded. Yes, Rachel's death was a tragedy that deprived Bruce of the happy ending he was working towards - but ultimately, he does get that with Selina.

Contrast this with the Snyder-Affleck Bruce Wayne, who spent 20 years in the cape and cowl. Gotham is still somewhat of a sh#thole. The years have taken its toll on him. He lost Robin. He's lost the idealism with which he started his mission and just become a cruel and cynical man who literally preys on criminals and focuses on eliminating threats. I'm a fan of Affleck's Wayne and find him to be a compelling character - but there's no denying its a very dark and cynical take on the character for the most part. Though it ends with a path towards optimism.

I guess, since Burton Batman was considered dark for its time

That's the argument the article I've linked made. Every successive cinematic iteration of Batman was darker than the previous ones (Schumacher films notwithstanding). Burton's Batman was darker than Batman '66. Nolan was 'darker' than Burton (though I'd argue it wasn't darker in tone but more grounded, which highlighted the darkness inherent in this world). DCEU's take on Batman is definitely darker than Nolan's, and the depiction of Gotham in Joker and the Batman in Reeves' upcoming film is taking the darkness and cynicism to another level.

[Frontier]

Well, we did have the Lego Batman movie as a contrast .

[prepmaster]

Somehow I had a dream of seeing a freezer storing legs & arms from dead people. This makes me think that if Batman ever delves into investigation of murder where mutilation of bodies happen, it can be visually disturbing.

[Gaius]

I never particularly considered the movies to be "dark", more "heightened realism" and fairly serious in comparison to the 90s films though I realize that overlaps with the definition of dark for some. All the movies tend to have a rather hopeful ending to them (even TDK I would argue).

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

ngl, that article does raise some good points in contrast to a lot of other versions of Batman. Sort of like how the Killing Joke isn't actually as nihlistic as it's reputation given that the whole crux of the story is that Gordon doesn't break.

[bat39]

ngl, that article does raise some good points in contrast to a lot of other versions of Batman. Sort of like how the Killing Joke isn't actually as nihlistic as it's reputation given that the whole crux of the story is that Gordon doesn't break.

Funnily enough, to the extent that TDK does borrow from TKJ, I guess you can say its a little less optimistic given that Harvey does break...though a significant number of citizens don't even in the face of impending death (including a boatload of criminals) so there's that.

[Frontier]

Funnily enough, to the extent that TDK does borrow from TKJ, I guess you can say its a little less optimistic given that Harvey does break...though a significant number of citizens don't even in the face of impending death (including a boatload of criminals) so there's that.

Kinda like in Long Halloween how they eventually basically take down all the major crime figures in Gotham only for it to ultimately result in Harvey becoming Two-Face and finishing Falcone off (heralding the rise of the Super-Criminals).

[John Venus]

What are they gonna do? Sodomize someone on screen and let the bad guys win while the bad guys win for all three movies while Batman violently and unnecessarily beats the **** out of Alfred. Because that's pretty damn dark and bleak. :eyeroll:

[Vakanai]

I think so yes - and that's a good thing. It's not like we don't get plenty of lighter Batman stuff, particularly in animation. The Lego Batman Movie, the Lego DC DTV movies, JLA Adventures Trapped in Time, the Batman Unlimited movies, The Batman (cartoon), Batman the Brave and the Bold (and the movie with Scooby Doo), Beware the Batman, the return of Adam West for two final films.

Yes, the live action movies have gotten darker, but Hollywood has in general. Take Dracula, I love the character dearly and the original Universal films are some of my favorite movies of all time, but they're not considered dark or that scary by today's standards. But the Hammer films went darker and famously more violent and bloody, and yet even those feel quaint by today's standards (although again still being some of my favorite films). Then we got the Frank Langella movie, then the Gary Oldman movie (can you believe that the same guy is both Dracula and Commissioner Gordon?). Most recent Dracula movie I watched was Dario Argento's, which while nothing great (objectively mediocre, but I liked it), is among one of the more violent/bloody Dracula movies out there, along with the Dracula 2000 trilogy. And yet the most current and popular or well known Dracula right now is the one in the Hotel Transylvania films. Maybe the superhero from the Dracula Untold is second closest right now.

Point is, the lighter takes haven't gone away. There have always been darker movies in Hollywood, films that were dark for their time and even plenty that are still dark today. I can't remember the name of the movie, but I saw a black and white movie from the 50s I think, foreign film, where this girl in the Middle Ages is raped and killed, the guys who did it talk their way into spending the night at her parents place, and then the dad finds out what happened to his girl then brutally kills all three, including a kid. That was the 50s/mid-60s at most.

It's just now we're finally getting to the point where a few select characters like Batman can encompass these extremes. You can have Nolan's trilogy and JOKER and The Batman next to Adam West and the Brave and the Bold and Batman Unlimited. Like you can have Dracula in things as violent as Castlevania and sweet as Hotel Transylvania.

Used to superheroes couldn't be too violent, then Kick-Ass and Deadpool blew up that idea. Logan made serious R-RATED comic book fare doable. And yet the very safe MCU also keeps on going. Light, dark, family friendly, ultra violent, there's something for everyone. What a time to be a fan!

[AtheistInRed]

The Nolan films were never dark though...(And yes, I will die on this hill.)

[gregpersons]

It's contextual, and it's a cultural threshold. Batman '89 was considered extremely dark. You look at it now, it looks like it's just the goth'd up reboot of the Adam West show, same as Tim Burton's approach to Alice in Wonderland or Dumbo.

The Nolan films were never especially violent. They were intense, particularly The Dark Knight, and they were frightening in the sense of plausibility of anarchic terrorism at home. Unfortunately this has just become sort of normal now, we're more accustomed to school shootings or random shootings or tons of everyday intense violence.... if only our real villains were as upfront about things as Joker... as slippery and supernatural as he is, at least he's just one guy.

All things considered, the Nolan films probably have the overall SUNNIEST view of Bruce/Batman/Gotham out of anything. He has a clear purpose. He has a specific endgame. He retires happily, as successful as a ninja-dracula private detective working probono could possibly be. Every other version has Bruce sticking with it until old age or death. Nolan allows Bruce and Selina to run off into the sunset.


In conclusion -- it's not especially dark in the way that the word implies. It's about characters who are in darkness, but the films itself are uplifting and optimistic, if in a sort of cockeyed way.