The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

[Harrygucha]

I always thought TDK, in the third act, stepped into the realm of fantasy - it felt like it violated all the great realistic stuff in the first two acts. I was baffled at the notion that Nolan would CGI Two-Face, and use bat sonar which was completely CGI...But Nolan himself says that when he gets to a certain stage in his films, he likes to introduce a little fantasy. I completely disagree with his choices in the third act of the film, it could have been so much more real. Here is a Q and A excerpt with Nolan in which he discusses this particular topic:


Can you tell us anything about how the Harvey Dent or Two-face makeup worked? Because Aaron didn't want to talk about it.



Christopher Nolan: Oh yeah? Well, the thing I will say which, depending who your audience is, certainly for film sophisticates, if you like, it's very apparent that it's done primarily using computer graphics. And that was a choice I made because I wanted the look to be so extreme as to be a little bit fanciful. When we looked at doing sculpts of the look, you know, in clay, of Aaron's face and how it would look degraded in different ways, uh, the more subtle the mutilation, the more horrible and depressing it was somehow, and it's the one area of the film where I felt that being a little more fanciful, being a little bit less uh, less real, realistic I should say, and having just a lot of interesting sculptural detail in it for the audience to look at, have a morbid fascination with--that was the term we were looking for. We don't want people to, you know, we don't want them throwing up their popcorn and we don't want them looking away from the screen. We want them to be able to engage with his character. So we wanted it to be a little bit fanciful.



Following up on that, you obviously have to sort of look at that division from reality and fanciful stuff a lot, especially in an action film. I mean, you want to make a realistic film, you also want to make the action big, you want to make it exciting. How often do you find yourself up against that decision, and how often do you think you choose fanciful over real, and how often do you stick with the real?



Christopher Nolan: Well, I think you find yourself up against it every step of the way, but I would honestly say that I think that this particular example is probably the only time I've sort of consciously chosen that. Possibly the one other point is in Batman Begins where we had the device he has when all the bats kind of come and rescue him. That's a very fanciful notion, drawn from the comics, but it felt somehow that where we were in the story that the audience would embrace that and not feel that it was out of character with the rest of the film. Uh, when you look at it, you sort of step back and look at it, it's very much more fanciful than other elements of the film. So there's the odd choice like that to be made, but generally, the impulse is always to try and make the thing as real as possible and be as rigid as possible in the standards you apply to the notion of could this happen in our universe.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Technically, yes. Visually/Aesthetically, not really.

Thank you!

 

[Harrygucha]

I personally liked the suit throughout all the film, bar one scene: the interrogation one. When he sits down and says "then why do you want to kill me" onwards, his bat-ears are off screen and the head really looks like a light bulb. His mouth looks dorky as well.

Yeah. Some of the interrogation scene was whack as well. But I guess that's what happens when you put Bats in bright light.

 

[Mr. Earle]

It's not like the differences between B89 and Returns.

It's recognizably the same city. Some of even the same locations are used and seen.

Only difference is things that make sense story wise. Nolan in TDK book conceeds to having an even more contemporary look, with clean lines, etc.

Thematically this represent Batman has done a powerful job of cleaning up the city.

The difference isn't that big, though.

Clearly the atmosphere is different. From that yellow tint that covered all gotham, to the smoke coming out of the underground pipes, the rain (even that one scene made a difference), the claustrophobic feeling, the dirt, the monorail etc.
Nolan wanted to unclutter it this time because of the explosions and the larger scale of things going on in TDK. I personally cant see why all this couldnt have taken place in the BB version of Gotham.

It seems to me that Nolan wanted to direct Heat 2, only with Batman in it. He took his realism and grit too far, to the point where he stripped batman and gotham of their legendary aura. It felt too common and normal sometimes.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Hey I don't know, I just know what he's getting at. But I totally hear you with what you were saying with having the mob "for the final knock out blow" A great point to support the idea of a cleaner looking city. But maybe on a first viewing perhaps, when you see TDK's Gotham City compared to BB's, doesn't it look like two different cities? I think some fans simply prefer the grittier looking city, and maybe that's just the issue here.

There is another issue. That of continuity. Its like TDK takes place in a different city. I couldnt see the tumbler taken out of that surrealistic Gotham and placed in downtown chicago. The same with Scarecrow. He was there to bind the two films together, but in the end, the atmosphere was so different.

All in all, to me BB had that comicbook aura to it that made it more....epic. It wasnt over the top like Singer's Metropolis. It was just about right. It was the little icing on the cake that turned the everyday city to Gotham.

But then we have scene where he does interact in BEGINS-ish dirty / dark areas.

The alley with Dent. The alley where he breaks Maroni's ankle. The warehouse where Dent is at. "Lower 5th" ...

They are gritty. Just not from the same Gotham as BB.

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

The Special Features on the dvd

 

[batman11]

It felt too common and normal sometimes.

Which, as many have tried to explain, was done for a reason. There's a literary term which you may have heard of, called pathetic fallacy. By definition, it means that the weather mirrors the situation or emotion of a character, often associated with Shakespearean works.

In this case, we can substitute weather for overall aesthetic, and the emotion of the character for Gotham and it's situation. In Begins, the city was pretty well in the crapper. Corruption, poverty, criminality, etc. The look of Begins was, as you've mentioned, dirty, gritty, and downright unpleasant. Hence, the environment reflected the situation of the city.

Fast forward to TDK. Bats has been at work for about 6 months. We obviously know he's been doing a good job because A) we heard about it in the virals and B) the mob is being forced together, thusly relaying the message that Bats has beaten organized crime to a pulp. What does Gotham look like in TDK? Clean, brighter, better. The term "cleaning up the streets" is taken to a visual metaphor here, and is clearly done on purpose.

And then look at how Gotham progresses towards the end of the film. It's not a coincidence that the final confrontation and finale retain some of the old Begins grit look, with Batman riding down the dark, rusty street into the light. The Joker has pushed Gotham to the brink, and now with Batman on the run, whether he realizes it or not, the city will begin yet another declining slope.

 

[Harrygucha]

"When we looked at doing sculpts of the look, you know, in clay, of Aaron's face and how it would look degraded in different ways, uh, the more subtle the mutilation, the more horrible and depressing it was somehow, and it's the one area of the film where I felt that being a little more fanciful, being a little bit less uh, less real, realistic I should say, and having just a lot of interesting sculptural detail in it for the audience to look at, have a morbid fascination with--that was the term we were looking for."

This is where i completely disagree with Nolan. If you want to make a film that trancends the genre, keep it real. Yes, the more subtle, the more depressing. Two-Face is the most tragic figure in the film, we are supposed to be depressed at the notion of his fate. The more subtle and real the scarring, the more believeable the character is. We needed to feel for Dent. If you completely CGI half his face, we're just looking at the CGI and not the character. The brilliance and intensity and just overall enjoyment of seeing the Joker in this film was the fact that he felt SO REAL. I really felt scared by the Joker because he wasn't a guy who fell into chemicals, and was a guy I believed was REAL, and that was partly due to the fact that the Joker was subtly done, and seemed REAL...and was REAL...I could believe in it. Two-FAce, on the other hand, was NOT REAL. I disconnected with Dent as soon as I saw his half cartoon face.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Nice points Batman11, i see what you mean with the Gotham as a visual metaphor thing. I still would of liked to see the Narrows again though, maybe just to see the reaction of the crazies from Jokers plot. The way the Narrows was used in Gotham Knight anime was very interesting, like it was a no go zone, and even the police only go in when they have back-up

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Harrygucha, TDK is still FANTANSY film, its just set in a realistic world. How else is Harvey supposed to look? The way he looked was comic book accurate, he is supposed to be horrifyingly disfigured, not just a little bit scarred up.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Which, as many have tried to explain, was done for a reason. There's a literary term which you may have heard of, called pathetic fallacy. By definition, it means that the weather mirrors the situation or emotion of a character, often associated with Shakespearean works.

In this case, we can substitute weather for overall aesthetic, and the emotion of the character for Gotham and it's situation. In Begins, the city was pretty well in the crapper. Corruption, poverty, criminality, etc. The look of Begins was, as you've mentioned, dirty, gritty, and downright unpleasant. Hence, the environment reflected the situation of the city.

Fast forward to TDK. Bats has been at work for about 6 months. We obviously know he's been doing a good job because A) we heard about it in the virals and B) the mob is being forced together, thusly relaying the message that Bats has beaten organized crime to a pulp. What does Gotham look like in TDK? Clean, brighter, better. The term "cleaning up the streets" is taken to a visual metaphor here, and is clearly done on purpose.

And then look at how Gotham progresses towards the end of the film. It's not a coincidence that the final confrontation and finale retain some of the old Begins grit look, with Batman riding down the dark, rusty street into the light. The Joker has pushed Gotham to the brink, and now with Batman on the run, whether he realizes it or not, the city will begin yet another declining slope.

Remember that scene from BB when Thomas tells Bruce where he works and they all gaze upon Wayne tower and the downtown area from the monorail?
It felt clean and glamorous because it was the downtown area. Now fast forward to the batman-joker batpod duel that happened right in front of Wayne tower. I think it felt less glamorous and grittier. Simply because they got rid of those fantastic shots and the CGI of Gotham.

Now, lets talk about the slums. In BB they were gritty, dirty, etc. You can clean them up, but you cant change the architecture can you? They also looked comic booky because of the yellow tint.
Now lets go to the slums/alleys of TDK. They were so dark, that you could hardly see anything. In fact i thought that Dent was interrogating that goon in a warehouse until someone said it was a street. You couldnt see much and you couldnt see batman at all! Some critics have complained about this as well.
Remember the "its not who i am underneath..." part? It felt like a comic book movie. Realistic, but with a bit of.....garnish on it to make it more appealing. It felt like Batman. In TDK i sometimes felt i was watching something else.

For me, the epic line "i think you and i are destined to do this forever" would have been much more powerful in BB Gotham. I also believe that that Gotham could have provided an abandoned amusement park as the joker's hideout (instead of the docks) that i know many of you wanted to see. But nooooooo............TDK gotham is too gritty and realistic for that crap.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No, 'cuz he was still laughing at the end--he was just stunned, see?
And he quite clearly blew up a model, not people. Pfft.

How much rent do they charge for that Egyptian riverfront property?

 

[Mr. Earle]

How much rent do they charge for that Egyptian riverfront property?

I didnt get that. Is this a reference to Veidt?

 

[batman11]

Remember that scene from BB when Thomas tells Bruce where he works and they all gaze upon Wayne tower and the downtown area from the monorail?
It felt clean and glamorous because it was the downtown area. Now fast forward to the batman-joker batpod duel that happened right in front of Wayne tower. I think it felt less glamorous and grittier. Simply because they got rid of those fantastic shots and the CGI of Gotham.

That scene with Thomas pointing out Wayne Tower occurred in the daytime, which provided a much different aesthetic than the night. If you can find me a scene of Wayne Tower at night in BB that looked glamorous, and completely different from how it was represented in TDK, let me know.

On this topic however, was the aerial shot of the new Wayne building in TDK not reminiscent of that shot in BB? Very similar - skyline, cityscape, Wayne Enterprises building, etc.

Now, lets talk about the slums. In BB they were gritty, dirty, etc. You can clean them up, but you cant change the architecture can you? They also looked comic booky because of the yellow tint.
Now lets go to the slums/alleys of TDK. They were so dark, that you could hardly see anything. In fact i thought that Dent was interrogating that goon in a warehouse until someone said it was a street. You couldnt see much and you couldnt see batman at all! Some critics have complained about this as well.
Remember the "its not who i am underneath..." part? It felt like a comic book movie. Realistic, but with a bit of.....garnish on it to make it more appealing. It felt like Batman. In TDK i sometimes felt i was watching something else.

No offense bro, but I actually have to ask if you're serious here. Are you? The slums we were given in BB were in the Narrows. Not once in TDK did the plot take Batman or any of the characters to the Narrows. How exactly can you say architecture has changed when we're not in the same place?

Once again, the "It's not who I am..." was in the Narrows, which was never represented in TDK. I don't get what the complaint here is? Are you saying that the entirety of Gotham should be constructed like the Narrows? Would that even make sense?

For me, the epic line "i think you and i are destined to do this forever" would have been much more powerful in BB Gotham. I also believe that that Gotham could have provided an abandoned amusement park as the joker's hideout (instead of the docks) that i know many of you wanted to see. But nooooooo............TDK gotham is too gritty and realistic for that crap.

Here's where I'm really losing you. Are you saying that the "Destined forever..." line would have worked better had the film been tinted orange, with smoke in the background? I'm obviously not getting you. The final confrontation between Bats and the Joker did NOT take place in the Narrows, so why should it have had it's aesthetic? Which leads me to your point about the abandoned amusement park (why is that brought up so often lol?). TDK Gotham and BB Gotham are one in the same. The major difference is that 80% of Gotham was showcased via the Narrows in BB, whereas they were never shown in TDK. Just because they weren't shown doesn't mean they do not exist. That gritty, grungy environment would be a perfect housing for this amusement park, but I honestly saw no reason to go through with it. Why would the Joker house himself in the Narrows, when we know, according to Gordon it's "lost", and based on Gotham Knight, it's been completely shut down and locked off?

And now, I'm completely lost. You say TDK is too gritty for the BB look, when, the BB Narrows look is more gritty than TDK's. I'm quite confused, primarily in the way in which you choose to use "gritty". How would you describe the Narrows then?

Oh, and BTW, way to ignore all my points about the environment representing the situation. LOL j/k t:

 

[Mr. Earle]

Once again, the "It's not who I am..." was in the Narrows, which was never represented in TDK. I don't get what the complaint here is? Are you saying that the entirety of Gotham should be constructed like the Narrows? Would that even make sense?

Well making Gotham a normal city and throwing in a little island of grittiness so that batman can have his playground is a bad idea to begin with. Gotham should have its downtown area and the normal gritty neighbourhoods.

OK, yeah, most of BB took place in the Narrows and lower decker (falcone's restaurant) and none of the action took place in the Narrows in TDK. I wonder why the joker, the most crazy and dangerous person in the city didnt choose the most dangerous place to set camp?

Anyway, my point is that in TDK Gotham felt too sterile. Narrows or not, it felt sterile.

And what about the monorail? Why isnt it anywhere to be found in TDK? Only in the Lambo chase do we see its lower parts (which of course is Chicago's EL), but none of the CGI stations that we saw in BB.

I'll end this here, simply saying what most people agree with: TDK's gotham was different than BB's. Whether you like it more or not is a matter of taste.

Oh, and BTW, way to ignore all my points about the environment representing the situation. LOL j/k t:

I dont know if the change was done for that purpose in mind or Nolan simply wanted to tweak his gotham and make it more realistic for his crime drama.

 

[Anita18]

If you completely CGI half his face, we're just looking at the CGI and not the character. The brilliance and intensity and just overall enjoyment of seeing the Joker in this film was the fact that he felt SO REAL. I really felt scared by the Joker because he wasn't a guy who fell into chemicals, and was a guy I believed was REAL, and that was partly due to the fact that the Joker was subtly done, and seemed REAL...and was REAL...I could believe in it. Two-FAce, on the other hand, was NOT REAL. I disconnected with Dent as soon as I saw his half cartoon face.

I guess it depends who's watching. Whenever Two-Face showed up on screen, I was paying attention to the expressions on the unscarred side of his face, because it's the half that can actually express. But I guess others can be distracted by the gore.

Now lets go to the slums/alleys of TDK. They were so dark, that you could hardly see anything. In fact i thought that Dent was interrogating that goon in a warehouse until someone said it was a street. You couldnt see much and you couldnt see batman at all! Some critics have complained about this as well.

Depends on the projection. In IMAX I could see everything clearly, but in regular projection there have been a few issues. But I could always tell Dent was interrogating that goon in a shipping yard.

I wonder why the joker, the most crazy and dangerous person in the city didnt choose the most dangerous place to set camp?

Because it would be "part of the plan" and we all know that Joker likes to tweak people's assumptions.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I didnt get that. Is this a reference to Veidt?

No, it's a reference to the Nile (denial).

 

[Bat-Mite]

I always thought TDK, in the third act, stepped into the realm of fantasy - it felt like it violated all the great realistic stuff in the first two acts.

It's a comic book film, with many unrealistic aspects throughout, same as Batman Begins. There aren't capes that automatically turn into gliders. A batmobile can't fly through a parking garage from seemingly out of nowhere. It's extremely unlikely that a man could drop several storeys down and land right on top of a moving van, crushing it. It's even LESS likely that he'd land on said van without immediately falling off. And the sonar technology was established at the very beginning of the film, so considering that we'd actually been introduced to that element of the film that was used towards the end, you can hardly say that the movie was breaking its own rules in that regard. I could go on and on. This was never a realistic film by any means, and was, in fact, even less realistic than Batman Begins all throughout the film.

I was baffled at the notion that Nolan would CGI Two-Face, and use bat sonar which was completely CGI...But Nolan himself says that when he gets to a certain stage in his films, he likes to introduce a little fantasy.

Baffled that he would CGI Two-Face, and yet you think a Two-Face that looks like he's claymation would be an improvement? And if you'd been paying attention to the coverage of the film, which I'd imagine you were, I can't see how you'd be the least bit baffled by what we got. They were telling us from the very beginning that Two-Face's appearance was going to be a combination of makeup and CGI. And if Nolan didn't use fantasy elements, this couldn't ever rightly be called a Batman movie, IMO. Anyone who thinks Batman and his world should be 100% realistic simply doesn't understand the character, in my view.

This is where i completely disagree with Nolan. If you want to make a film that trancends the genre, keep it real. Yes, the more subtle, the more depressing. Two-Face is the most tragic figure in the film, we are supposed to be depressed at the notion of his fate. The more subtle and real the scarring, the more believeable the character is. We needed to feel for Dent.

I was personally quite depressed by Harvey's fate in the film, and I think most people were. Especially from what I've seen on these boards. And the suggestion that realism is necessary in order to evoke an emotional response has been disproved time and time again. People of all ages still have a plethora of emotional reactions to Alice in Wonderland, the Wizard of Oz, and Peter Pan, despite the fact that none of these tales are remotely realistic. The same could be said for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. People were so shocked by Darth Vader's revelation to Luke that he was his father, that the moment in film has become legendary. And yet, this scene takes place between a man in a robot suit and a boy wizard-warrior from an alien planet. And this isn't even going into things like the massive popularity of Harry Potter. Realism is in no way, shape, or form necessary to get people to empathize with a character.

If you completely CGI half his face, we're just looking at the CGI and not the character.

Only to someone too preoccupied with superficiality to appreciate what the story is actually saying. Not to mention the fact that his scarred side was often hidden. In his final scene, for example, his scarred face was hidden in the shadows for the majority of the time.

 

[Anita18]

It's a comic book film, with many unrealistic aspects throughout, same as Batman Begins. There aren't capes that automatically turn into gliders. A batmobile can't fly through a parking garage from seemingly out of nowhere. It's extremely unlikely that a man could drop several storeys down and land right on top of a moving van, crushing it. It's even LESS likely that he'd land on said van without immediately falling off. And the sonar technology was established at the very beginning of the film, so considering that we'd actually been introduced to that element of the film that was used towards the end, you can hardly say that the movie was breaking its own rules in that regard. I could go on and on. This was never a realistic film by any means, and was, in fact, even less realistic than Batman Begins all throughout the film.

It only seems more realistic because they included so many ordinary characters into the fray. This online article talks about it a little bit:

Dent and Gordon give The Dark Knight more substance than you would expect because, unlike the quasi-magical characters who are battling on the streets of Gotham, they have something to lose. Joker couldn’t care less if he dies, and Batman is always an inch away from burnout, but Dent and Gordon have lives. Joker and Batman, by comparison, have causes. In a climactic exchange between the two that lifts rather liberally from Alan Moore’s tragicomic Batman story The Killing Joke, Joker and Batman seem to be actors doomed to play out their opposing roles for as long as fate will allow, neither to win nor lose. They are playing a game that Dent and Gordon can’t afford to take part in.

In The Dark Knight, as in many other comic-book films, when mortals tangle in the affairs of the gods, they get burned. However, unlike most every other film of this kind, it’s those same mortals who create the most affecting drama. With Nolan’s film, the promise of change to the superhero genre that comics readers were promised decades ago has finally come to pass. It’s not that superheroes had to become more human but that they had to be placed on the same stage with non-superheroes. It’s like gambling; the more you have on the line, the more people pay attention.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/featur...nary-men-normalcy-comics-and-the-dark-knight/

Baffled that he would CGI Two-Face, and yet you think a Two-Face that looks like he's claymation would be an improvement?

Actually that Two-Face looks like a bad oil painting. No offense if it was the work of anyone here.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

Which, as many have tried to explain, was done for a reason. There's a literary term which you may have heard of, called pathetic fallacy. By definition, it means that the weather mirrors the situation or emotion of a character, often associated with Shakespearean works.

In this case, we can substitute weather for overall aesthetic, and the emotion of the character for Gotham and it's situation. In Begins, the city was pretty well in the crapper. Corruption, poverty, criminality, etc. The look of Begins was, as you've mentioned, dirty, gritty, and downright unpleasant. Hence, the environment reflected the situation of the city.

Fast forward to TDK. Bats has been at work for about 6 months. We obviously know he's been doing a good job because A) we heard about it in the virals and B) the mob is being forced together, thusly relaying the message that Bats has beaten organized crime to a pulp. What does Gotham look like in TDK? Clean, brighter, better. The term "cleaning up the streets" is taken to a visual metaphor here, and is clearly done on purpose.

And then look at how Gotham progresses towards the end of the film. It's not a coincidence that the final confrontation and finale retain some of the old Begins grit look, with Batman riding down the dark, rusty street into the light. The Joker has pushed Gotham to the brink, and now with Batman on the run, whether he realizes it or not, the city will begin yet another declining slope.

Right on ...

Thing is I said this a few pages ago and kid didn't acknowledge it.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

I dont know if the change was done for that purpose in mind or Nolan simply wanted to tweak his gotham and make it more realistic for his crime drama.

No, it's definetely the case. It was mentioned somewhere in the "Art of The Dark Knight" ... but it shouldn't have to be told to you.

The point is Batman has them on the run. Alfred explains this through out the film. Joker explains this to the remaining criminal elements of Gotham.

The clean look is a metaphor visually to the fact that Batman has been kicking ass and taking names, and has poised himself to be in the position to give the final knock out blow to the suffocating criminal element of the city that made it a gritty place to live ... "by going after the mobs life savings, things will get ugly"

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

There is another issue. That of continuity.

There is no issue of continuity. None. Beyond maybe the Wayne Tower change, and that could be another building for the company within the vast city. It could've been the newly remolded Wayne Enterprises because there was damage to the original at the end of Batman Begins?

Its like TDK takes place in a different city. I couldnt see the tumbler taken out of that surrealistic Gotham and placed in downtown chicago.

Not at all. BTW, the scene of the Tumbler driving in BEGINS was in downtown Chicago. To be exact the same bridges you see the masses of people struggling to leave the city in The Dark Knight. It was the exact same. Tumbler didn't look out of place in any scene. And we see the exact same lower underground street with the rustic / orange backlight.

The same with Scarecrow. He was there to bind the two films together, but in the end, the atmosphere was so different.

Atmosphere was different, yes. But it wasn't a different city. In looks, it just expanded. Like the difference visually from say ALIEN to ALIENS. Expanding on the universe. Most of the shots in BEGINS are in small corridors, or inside small rooms and buildings. The whole movie had a more intimate, claustrophobic feel. TDK was the story about a city. So naturally it's going to expand it's visuals. But a different city? Hardly. Difference is atmosphere. BEGINS has a rustic visual look and tone. TDK is a sleek blue tint to the film.

All in all, to me BB had that comicbook aura to it that made it more....epic.

See, just about everyone else I talk to say the exact opposite. BEGINS was praised for making the first Batman film on location and not on a Wal-Mart sized backlot. This film expands even further than that. This makes BEGINS feel small in comparison. You see this vast city. It felt like the stuff was actually happening.

The Dark Knight is EPIC

Batman Begins is PERSONAL

They are gritty. Just not from the same Gotham as BB.

No, it's the same type of gritty. In fact I'm pretty sure those were the scenes filmed on the Shepperton or Cardington lot where they didn't take down the sets from BEGINS ...

And the whole HUGE action beat of the movie takes place on the same "Lower 5th" street, with the same look that the chase scene in BEGINS took place at.

 

[gwynplaine]

I really like bright, clean Gotham, besides what has been very well said above about Batman "cleaning up the streets" it is also a more original and fresher approach to the character and his universe imo.
We had Dark Gotham already, the gothic one with Burton and the Blade runnery one with BB. It's fascinating to see how maestro Pfister and Nolan have magnificently brought Batman, a night creature by essence, into the day light.
And I thought that the fact that the interrogation room scene was also brightly lit was so much more original than a damp dark cell which to me would have been pretty cliche.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I'd have to agree with Zig Zag on this one. Begins was much more personal, it focused more on the individual character building moments, Bruce with Ras, Bruce with Rachel, Bruce with Alfred...ect. Most of the scenes were in tight areas, small rooms, hallways, ect.

TDK on the other hand felt much more epic. All the sweeping shots of chicago and Hong Kong, the huge elaborate car chases, Batman actually leaving Gotham. It was just bigger.

 

[I Am The Knight]

There is no issue of continuity. None. Beyond maybe the Wayne Tower change, and that could be another building for the company within the vast city. It could've been the newly remolded Wayne Enterprises because there was damage to the original at the end of Batman Begins?

I think you can see the main Wayne Tower in the scene where Batman is driving the Batpod towards The Joker.