Admiral James Kirk wrote:
I honestly don't really care about the stuff you guys are pointing out. I still really enjoyed the movie, even if it isn't perfect. I was drawn into it enough by the story, acting, and directing that I honestly never really thought to much about most of this stuff, except for the back thing which bugged me for a minute or two, until you guys started discussing them on here.
It bothered me because I enjoyed the "hyper realism" shall we call it of the first movie
was my favorite live action Batman movie but it wasn't hyper realistic. That movie with it's water evaporatorinator, fear gas and armies of ninjas was fantasyland through and through.
Like I said before; a true "hyper realistic movie" would be near impossible to do. First of all, there are things we just have to accept for the story to work. The whole point about Bruce Wayne for example, and how he happens to inherit a fortune. It's definitely convenient for the story to have a super rich guy be the one who wants to fight crime.
Then there's the access to extremely advanced technology, like the cape that becomes rigid with electriciy, etc. etc.
All these things "work" simply because we accept them for the story to work. We are used to the Batman story being this way.
In that sense, within the scope of the Batman mythos shall we call it? Nolan's "Batman Begins" is hyper realistic compared to everything that came before it. The Dark Knight slipped a little. And The Dark Knight Rises went back into your typical derivative action film.
Within the sense of "real life" Batman would never work. The feats he does in the movie who cripple him quickly, even with armor, like that jump he does into the roof of the scarecrow's van (At the least he'd get a sprained ankle from that, probably more)