Is realism a thing to be flustered about? A lot of comic book fans seem to dread words such as "we are trying to translate this comic book property for a real modern world". These words cause pages of flame wars. People eventually bring up movies such as "Man of Steel" and The Dark Knight Trilogy as films where realism only dampered the movie. Are these criticisms legit? My answer is no, they are not a legitiment reason to hate on a movie and think less of it.
A recent example of comic book movies being described as more "real" is the upcoming "Fantastic Four" reboot. A majority of people seem to think adding modern updates such as Reed working in a convienent store (rumor unconfirmed) to the gang wearing containment costumes as reasons the movie will suck. Really? Because the explanation given in the first movie was so much better? That the suits were hit by the storm thus can be used the same as their powers? That explanation is almost as bad as nipples on the batsuit. The suits being originally used as a protective barrier in case getting hit by the storm made them sick is actually a decent explanation. And speaking of nipples on the batsuit...
The Dark Knight Rises does not suck. Everybody seems to say that the realistic Bane was a disadvantage to the movie (one of many "critisicisms"). But he was an interesting character, able to compete with and defeat Batman and anyone else that he fights. That is what Bane is meant to be, a superior warrior, which he in fact is. Realism was needed in this movie and the other Dark Knight films in order to give it a bit of an edge, which the campy Joel Schumacher films lost. And these movies, and how they successfully blended the real world with elements of the comic book, is what inspired the oh so praised Marvel Cinematic Universe.
The first Iron Man is the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There is a reason for this. It did not stuff a lot of sequel set up, Avengers references, or unneeded cameos. The characters were well fleshed, even the villain, who in actuality is the best that Marvel has done. But other than those, the film was real. It was in fact believable, it took notes from Batman Begins on how to translate a comic book character into the real world. Even Captain America: The Winter Soldier kept this realism alive.
Now, I am not saying that films that are purely fictional and can't happen in the real world are bad. The Guardians of the Galaxy seemed like a really fun film for people, as well as the original Superman movies. But adding bits of realistic features does not damper a film, it makes it stronger, and more believeable, thus making it more relatable for audiences.
Now, back to the question at hand, why do comic book fans hate realism now? One can only speculate. I think it is because they are starting to look at the deviations as punches to the face. I mean, now if Batman Begins was to come out in theaters and an article popped up "Batmobile to be an unused tank" people would go nuts! Well that, my fellow CBMers, is why none of us, me included in that, are screenwriters, casting agents, producers, directors, editors, critics or anything related to major studios such as Warner Brothers or Disney. It is their job to write and translate, and our job to misinterpret news that we hear. That is the truth of it all. We don't know anything, and it's time to accept that. Realism is not a bad word. It is word that simply means "hey, we are taking your favorite hero, adding a new spin, and making it so that a majority of people can like and appreciate them instead of just people that like the comic books".
Well, i hope you enjoyed, feel free to give me the big red thumbs up if you agreed!