Originally Posted by jmc
You didn't answer my question. Nolan's approach has always been about making the best possible movie and not being confined to the conventions the genre had instilled in the past. The plausibility or realism thing is just an aesthetics choice, it doesn't even come into play because that's just Nolan's way of thinking, whether it be Batman, Inception or The Prestige, that's just his style, not just story but the use of practical effects, his intention is to make his world's as believable as possible. Underneath that style however is a desire to give the audience something they haven't seen before and to expand beyond the conventions. Why shouldn't a superhero film strive to be more than just a colourful cape and outrageous villain? Why can't we tell a serious story? There's nothing to say that you have to do that in a realistic fashion is there? Have we not had fantastical movies in the past have serious tones? Thing is this is exactly what Marvel has started doing post Avengers. I was actually shocked at how different IM3 was, it wasn't just different from Avengers it was different from the preceding IM films. Look at Thor 2, does that look like a conventional superhero movie? They are striving to do something similar to what Nolan did, they are looking to move beyond the conventions the genre is known for, only they aesthetic choices are different.
Nolan goes beyond basic style or costume choices for plausibility. The Chicago/Pittsburgh setting, the crime drama story structure, the complete avoidance of imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, etc.
I'm not sure why there's this denial that Nolan's approach embraces plausibility over imagination. It's more than obvious.
and movies like IM3, MOS, and ASM following TDK's grounded approach doesn't really help your argument. The all pale in comparison to Avengers which blows them all away in term of pure entertainment value.
Not all superheroes need the imagination sucked away. Even Batman could use some these days.