Originally Posted by JonZ
Even when youre dealing with a superhero - which requires suspension of disbelief - real world setting or not.
I think it was pointed in the Begins thread by someone that the film is hard to take seriously as happening in "reality" when we're watching the Tumbler jumping rooftops and driving on the roof of the church.
That bit didn't bother me at all. I could suspend disbelief for that part if the reaction to it
had been realistic or logical. The word 'reaction' here meaning the actions that follow.
What is impossible for me to reconcile is
1) that he finally evades an aerial pursuit
by turning off his head/running lights and going 'off road'.
2) that a guy using an armored tank, who's shooting off the equivilent of RPG's in the city, and who 'with depraved indifference' is responsible for the destruction of several police vehicles as well as imperiling the operators lives, is not the subject of an INTENSIVE 24/7 manhunt/investigation until he is captured.
It would be one thing if Nolan showed him performing some super duper sleight of hand to trick them, but it is in fact just the opposite. He busts through barriers and goes through a cleared path in the woods. He leaves a trail that is clear and obvious right up to the waterfall along with plenty of motivation for a concentrated effort for his capture.
I actually like Begins because I enjoy the characters arc and satisfaction of seeing him more or less logically piece together the various aspects of an iconic persona. But it's funny how much the movie aggressively forces me to not pay close attention once he actually becomes Batman. Too many illogical concessions have to be made too often. Once you get into TDK, which is now all Batman, similar concessions have to be made consistently all the way through, from the opening reel to the end credits.
The Joker's escape during the bank robbery may be illogical and unrealistic in our real world, but did anyone ever hear Nolan say that he was creating a film world that was supposed to be100% analogous to our own? I can't remember him ever claiming that he was trying to make a film where we could believe that a vigilante in an armored suit could logically exist in the "real world". I think he was just trying to make an entertaining film with a take on the characters that made them darker and less comical within their fictional world, than in any previous incarnations.
All stories need to hew to their own internal logic or they elicit a response of "Bullshit!"
If, at the end of the story, Batman can take advantage of millions of cell phones in the city to accomplish one specific goal, then it follows that on a busy urban street you can not slam a bus into a building, let it idle there for a little while, and then slowly pull out and make an escape into slow moving traffic without a few of those millions of people with cell phones making note of it- from their cars, from the sidewalk, etc etc. It's a cute gag, and more witty than anything the character was involved with in the Burton film. But when you give it any real thought at all, it's really not that far removed from something that could have been dropped into the TV series. You wouldn't necessarily have seen it, but I could easily see Neil Hamilton describing the event afterward to Batman in his office- "and he got away in slow moving traffic, you say? The fiend!" "Holy diabolical field trip, Batman!"
Exactly. I don't care that everything that happened in the movie isn't 100% realistic.....it's a comic book movie for crap's sake!
I don't think any of my criticisms are going to make much of a difference to anyone. But I'm waiting for the Red Letter Media guy to start tackling these. I said this in another thread awhile ago, but I think the guy has a lot of material to work with here, and I don't expect people to see just how poorly thought out this stuff is until it is fully illustrated for them. What is really disheartening to me, besides seeing so many people easily give this material a pass while ripping others left and right, is that just a few more passes at the script stage could have alleviated quite a few of my complaints. The weaknesses in the two films are not insurmountable, but they are very, very sloppy.
And for Pete's sake, if you are going to be so forgiving of oodles of illogical motivation and logistics, do we really need to experience such a foolish and goofy looking costume and voice on the character? Why does that aspect have to be so rigidly grounded in logic when so much else isn't?