Originally Posted by DACrowe
It's more of a matter of applying logic to it. If you look at the very simple concept of Batman too long, you see a rich boy with daddy issues using his money to beat up the poor and mentally sick who are symptoms of a society that Bruce Wayne (could be) arguably contributing to when he spends all his money on fighting symptoms instead of pr the problems. Then it gets into a whole class warfare thing.
Nolan made his Batman's mission much more methodical. He not only partners with the cops and DA, he performs surgical strikes meant to completely demolish organized crime and set up a political climate for democratic and legislative change. I'd say a little less "unrealistic" than a guy who fights crime for decades and, usually, fails to see the bigger picture.
But that is the beauty of the comics. YOu can take it a step out of the logical and make it more of a mythological, elemental thing. That is kind of what TAS and even Burton did. Both are fine, but I can see why Nolan wanted to come up with an actual strategy. Also, in the comics, Batman is part of a bigger sci-fi world where the problems extend beyond the criminal. Again, Nolan boils it down to a war on crime. He then creates a fantastic situation that would make the war semi-winnable. It is an interesting alternative.
Not to mention, both approaches perfectly fit their medium like a glove. Yeah, you can do a Bond-like approach to Batman on film but the logistics of pulling it off become trickier and varying levels of quality are inevitable.
Besides, we had already seen the movie franchise span four films that treated his mission as infinite like the comics. Heck, one of them was called Batman Forever
The finite mission approach was fresh, and it felt like we as the audience were rooting for a better society as much as we were rooting for Batman and his allies to stop the villain. It felt more positive in that sense.