I'm a Batman COMICS fan, first and foremost. And Begins comes closest to how I view Batman. Batman 89 is second, Returns 3rd... and the rest are too horrible to mention. That's my opinion. I am not attempting to force it on anyone, it's just how I feel.
You can't tell me that THIS:
successfully captures the Gotham of the comics. It looks as much like Denver as it does Gotham.
The League of Shadows, like any organization, can only succeed if it keeps tabs on areas involved with it's business, criminality, and operating out of the region it is, would only make sense for it to be aware of the prisons around it and crimes committed, and certainly a caucasion Amerian would stand out in that prison as he did. The League of Shadows viewed Gotham as a plagued part of the world that needed to fall and tried once, failed due to the Wayne family stepping in, it's very plausible they'd follow Bruce's story and coming accross him in jail wherever he was, they'd see fit to try and win him over as it would only help their efforts in Gotham for round 2.
You're still over-rationalizing something inherently unrealistic. Everything just perfectly falls into place in practically every superhero movie, that's just one of the conventions of the genre and Nolan is no less guilty of it than anyone else. I mean, I think the "Spider-Man" films (at least the first two, though I think the third one is a lot better than people give it credit for) are the best of the genre and it doesn't bother me that Mary Jane is the damsel in distress at the end of every movie and that every villain has some sort of personal connection to Peter Parker. There's a degree of non-realism expected in the genre that is A: unavoidable and B: acceptable. Nolan's "Batman" is unrealistic no matter how you slice it, and there's no point in trying to act like that's some sort of advantage over Burton's films because they're pretty much in the same league in that respect.
His family developed a corporation that's a think tank for developing goods the world needs from domestic to military applications.
I wouldn't say it's magical that things he needs happens to be there, merely convenient, but he outsourced the pieces of his mask which shows he's only going through WE because he owns it all and it's easier to acquire under the radar. Certainly, it's less magical than Burton's Batman who designs a suit from the ground up specifically to be Batman where Nolan's kit bashes pieces he finds around WE into a suit. I find it more realistic to create something from existing pieces that may happen to be overly conveniently available than to be skilled enough to create them all on your own from scratch and still have the elements be conveniently available.
It's arguably more realistic to leave the audiences hanging and not address the issue than have such a convenient, flawless and unrealistic explanation. It's ultimately a Deus ex Machina, we have a really furiously pissed off guy who just happens to have these resources that allow him to do whatever he pleases. Once again, that's not really all that bad. I love the James Bond 007 series and it doesn't bother me that in nearly every movie Q gives him a watch in the beginning that is exactly what he needs to get out of a jam at the end but I wouldn't say it's realistic.
Fox was fired just for asking questions about a WE project, clearly they take great pride in making certain projects be very hush hush. I find it very plausible that anyone recognizing the tumbler on TV would be unlikely to have an opportunity to speak up, particularly when there was opposition to Batman, last thing people of WE before Bruce took over would let happen is WE be tied to Batman, and especially with Bruce in charge, it'll get covered up.
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's just a job and literally a whole staff of people would know and in the world of "Batman" (however unconvincing it is in Nolan's version) there would be great financial incentives from the media or, more obviously, organized crime to say "hey, I worked on this at Wayne Enterprises and now Batman has it" and that would be all it takes to get someone poking around and figuring it out. Once again, that goes back to the fact that the whole thing is inherently unrealistic, but by doing it in such a style-less, straightforward way Nolan begs those questions and they simply can't be answered without completely pulling the rug out from beneath the film. That's the true advantage to Burton's films, they exist in a fantasy world and that's the perfect setting for such an unrealistic character.
For me, Burton and Shumacher's films make you look at Batman himself and wonder "how does he pull this off?", Nolan's film didn't leave me wondering anything like that, I finished Batman Begins with a sense of, if someone is going to be Batman, this is about the only way you could go about it because 1 man can't do everything from making cars to bullet proof suits.
Once again, I strongly disagree. Seeing Batman as a realistic and rich character is incredibly childish. The character is the kind that appeals to the people who associate things like "character development" with the fast-forward button and think everything short of laser-vision and heat-breath is realistic.
No, it's not Shakespeare. The story arc is a man loses his parents as a child to criminals, buries a strong sense of guilt along with anger at the man who took their lives, develops a drive to rid the world of that which took away what was most precious to him and taps into all of his resources to make it happen. From that, I think Begins better portrays and makes you feel that is what's going on with Bruce Wayne, you get a sense of why he is Batman and what he's really about. Burton's Batman doesn't convey that so much, it's in the story but the way it's handled just isn't as compelling, you don't feel for what's going on in him you just get a vague sense that it's there, but you feel like Nolan's Batman is tragic.
I think this is actually the biggest failing of the movie. For someone who is so "tormented" he sure is quick to toss off the witty one-liners and jokes. If there's one area where the film could have stood to be more serious it's in the portrayal of the Batman character. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that the overall tone of the movie should be less-than-serious but the character himself should be and it's like Nolan got that completely backwards. I mean, I think of lines like "does it come in black?" and the way Bale delivers it and all I can think of is how there are moments when they completely and utterly missed the mark. At the end of the day, Goyer and Nolan's script is just plain mediocre.
Undeniably, Burton created a very stylistic world where Nolan bastardized the real world, but that's hardly enough to carry a film. I seriously doubt the endurance of Batman 1989 comes from the style, but rather the entire story and the style is only a part of it. Batman is a powerful hero because he doesn't have superpowers, he's just a guy and people can relate to being just a guy. Tell an entertaining story around that basic principle and you'll have an enduring film and to that end, I think Nolan's will be just as enduring because it's a nicely told story.
The thing is, it doesn't carry the film, but the setting is the foundation upon which the film is based and the Batman character is simply incongruous with Nolan's setting.
I see nothing all that connectable in the characters of Burton's films and especially not Shumacher's. Keaton plays a great Bruce Wayne and Batman, but doesn't do anything that make me feel like "ya I've been there", but Bale's performance and emotion touched me, there were times where I though "i've felt like this" and I get pulled into the Begins story because things happen I wish I could do myself.
That may be your individual reaction but my point was that Nolan's film was far, far less-successful than three of the four previous "Batman" films. It's second only to "Batman" '89 in real-world dollars but if you take inflation into account it only beats "Batman & Robin" in terms of the number of people actually watching the movie. Nolan made a joyless, visually unremarkable film and audiences weren't nearly as interested as they were in the past.
