The Dark Knight Rises Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

[Doc Samson]

You know what bothers me? The fact that some people refuse to admit that there's no end all, be all way to do these characters in most cases. Trying to condense a comic with decades of material into a 2 hour movie isn't easy, and to be honest, if you cycle through those decades of comics, you can find some issue somewhere to backup almost any outlandish thing you want it to.

Grounded "realism" or whatever you want to call it was something Nolan decided to do. It doesn't make it right or wrong, there's no such thing as that when it comes to a particular interpretation, as long as it stays true to the characterization most accepted among it's creators. There's no reason it has to be lightened up, just as there was no reason for Adam West to be darkened up. In these precious comics you guys love to cite as evidence to back up your claims, almost every angle you could possibly take Batman has been covered in some capacity. After this movie, somebody new can take him in whatever direction they please...

 

[jmc]

Its not personal preference, its how Batman is portrayed in the canon comic book series. I dont want them to follow his exact history without taking any liberties, far from it, but i've had enough of this confining realism that is strangling the fun out of this franchise.

But it its personal preference, it's all about interpretation, some people may read Batman in the comics differently from you. There's not one definitive Batman, either in comic or film because the character is always evolving, always adapting, he's not an absolute. Look how many Batman titles there are going around. He's been dark, he's been campy, he's been more fantastical, he's been more realistic, he's been everywhere in between and sometimes places way outside of any direction. That's the beauty of the character, he's so adaptable in a variety of ways. If you're so hung up about there not being fantastical elements to the series, fine! Don't watch the movies! No-ones tying you up, gluing your eyes open and forcing you to watch them. Don't perpetuate this rubbish that it isn't a faithful portrayal of the mythology or that others don't find it fun just because it's missing something you think it should have.

In the post above i write that i base my opinion on the rumors that have been surfacing. Furthermore, an early script of GL has been leaked and i've read it and then there's this:

Way to prove your point that GL is gonna be like the comic. Rumours.

 

[returntovoid]

yet you people seem to hate TDK simply because its grounded in a more realistic world.

OK, I'll get off the "it sucks because of realism" s**t and go more in depth to why I was not fond of the film as I was with Batman Begins plus the Tim Burton films. I don't want to prove it's a bad film but I just want you people to understand my reasons/logic for my criticisms/opinion.

-I thought the Batsuit was aesthetically horrible and not scary in any way unlike the one in Batman Begins

-The fight scenes may be a bit clearer but they lack the excitement/kinetic energy of the ones in Batman Begins

-Not enough focus on Batman, there was more focus than in the Schumacher films but less focus than in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns

-Batman lacked the powerful presence, it's not just about screen time but powerful/iconic impact that Batman has whenever he's comes on the screen, I got that in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns but not TDk

-Bringing Rachel Dawes back was pointless to me because Batman's relationships with ordinary women are not that strong, besides she seemed totally done with him in Batman Begins and was just a lame damsel-in-distress character that doesn't like him as Batman after all. I would have preferred if they used Catwoman instead. Don't bring the excuse that she brought tragedy to Harvey Dent because the Gilda character from the comics could have been used for that plus I hated the unnecessary/sappy love triangle of Rachel, Harvey and Bruce

-I didn't like the fact that Batman considered giving up his persona because The Joker killed some innocents, I mean Batman is only human he can only save innocents that he is able to save instead of whining, he could have just gone and kick The Joker's a** to get it over with because the murder of those innocents was a sin committed by The Joker not Batman. Besides, giving up is like him throwing away his soul because let's face it, Bruce Wayne is the facade and Batman is the real person

-I didn't like the fact that Batman took the blame for a golden boy-turned-psychopath even though he was a good person that fell to tragedy, I think Batman should still let the truth out. This message of lying for the public felt morally wrong to me

-Heath Ledger's Joker may have been well acted/unique and I liked some bits like the pencil trick and bazooka but to be honest, overall I didn't enjoy this Joker as much as the one played by Jack Nicholson, this Joker didn't hysterically laugh that much, didn't use any iconic deadly toys/gags to kill people or use laughing gas, his humor didn't hit my laughter nerves and just was too much of a terrorist that I might as well call him Osama Bin Joker

-Batman hardly used any of his iconic gadgets, was too naive/unsure and they made The Joker seem more intellectual than him but don't bring excuse that this is a young Batman because we already saw him learning Batman Begins

-Gotham City lacked the atmosphere that was present in Batman Begins, Batman 1989, Batman Returns, no iconic shots of Batman and I didn't feel that I entered Batman's world in any way

-Batman was no longer the mythical creature of the night/terror striking from the shadows that he was in Batman Begins

-The film lacked the fun/excitement of Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns instead it tried too hard to be a serious/very realistic crime-drama

 

[MacLeod]

Based on what interpretation, exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most if not all depictions of his origin show him preparing for a purpose in fighting crime, but he had no intention of actually dressing up as a Bat, or coming up with with a double identity, until well after his training.

We're basically saying the same thing. When I say he became Batman the night his parents died I don't actually mean he chose the bat costume. Instead I'm saying he decided to fight crime and injustice from that moment on. He started training from that moment on, the costume was just a final decision. My problem is that in Nolan's version this never ever happened. He was lost for 10-15 years and did nothing to prepare himself for his future role.

 

[MacLeod]

OK, I'll get off the "it sucks because of realism" s**t and go more in depth to why I was not fond of the film as I was with Batman Begins plus the Tim Burton films. I don't want to prove it's a bad film but I just want you people to understand my reasons/logic for my criticisms/opinion.

-I thought the Batsuit was aesthetically horrible and not scary in any way unlike the one in Batman Begins

-The fight scenes may be a bit clearer but they lack the excitement/kinetic energy of the ones in Batman Begins

-Not enough focus on Batman, there was more focus than in the Schumacher films but less focus than in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns

-Batman lacked the powerful presence, it's not just about screen time but powerful/iconic impact that Batman has whenever he's comes on the screen, I got that in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns but not TDk

-Bringing Rachel Dawes back was pointless to me because Batman's relationships with ordinary women are not that strong, besides she seemed totally done with him in Batman Begins and was just a lame damsel-in-distress character that doesn't like him as Batman after all. I would have preferred if they used Catwoman instead. Don't bring the excuse that she brought tragedy to Harvey Dent because the Gilda character from the comics could have been used for that plus I hated the unnecessary/sappy love triangle of Rachel, Harvey and Bruce

-I didn't like the fact that Batman considered giving up his persona because The Joker killed some innocents, I mean Batman is only human he can only save innocents that he is able to save instead of whining, he could have just gone and kick The Joker's a** to get it over with because the murder of those innocents was a sin committed by The Joker not Batman. Besides, giving up is like him throwing away his soul because let's face it, Bruce Wayne is the facade and Batman is the real person

-I didn't like the fact that Batman took the blame for a golden boy-turned-psychopath even though he was a good person that fell to tragedy, I think Batman should still let the truth out. This message of lying for the public felt morally wrong to me

-Heath Ledger's Joker may have been well acted/unique and I liked some bits like the pencil trick and bazooka but to be honest, overall I didn't enjoy this Joker as much as the one played by Jack Nicholson, this Joker didn't hysterically laugh that much, didn't use any iconic deadly toys/gags to kill people or use laughing gas, his humor didn't hit my laughter nerves and just was too much of a terrorist that I might as well call him Osama Bin Joker

-Batman hardly used any of his iconic gadgets, was too naive/unsure and they made The Joker seem more intellectual than him but don't bring excuse that this is a young Batman because we already saw him learning Batman Begins

-Gotham City lacked the atmosphere that was present in Batman Begins, Batman 1989, Batman Returns, no iconic shots of Batman and I didn't feel that I entered Batman's world in any way

-Batman was no longer the mythical creature of the night/terror striking from the shadows that he was in Batman Begins

-The film lacked the fun/excitement of Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns instead it tried too hard to be a serious/very realistic crime-drama

Wow, perfectly said, I don't think I could have said anyting like this better myself. All coincide with my opinions perfectly.

 

[MacLeod]

Can someone tell me why sometimes this post is in the Batsuit discussion thread and sometimes it's in the realism thread?

 

[MacLeod]

Wrong. I suggest you watch that whole segment again.

Why do you think Bruce was travelling the world in the first place? Studying criminal fraternities from the inside, learning how to fight, etc.

"I seek the means to fight injustice" - Bruce's words when he first goes to the temple.

Wow, wrong, it must be amazing to be so confident. I suggest you watch it again because it seems you misse something too.

Bruce traveled the world because he ran away from Gotham, not because he wanted to find himself, but because there was nothing left for him there. Bruce didn't go to other countries to train, he went there because that's where the nearest ship took him, it was by chance not by choice. He didn't choose to study the criminal fraternities, he fell into it by being a criminal, something he should have never been. He only made the injustice statement because Ra's offered him a choice, Bruce would have never made that choice by himself. Even if I'm wrong, which I don't believe I am, saying I'm wrong only makes you seem less correct by the way.

 

[skiddyboy]

Wow, wrong, it must be amazing to be so confident. I suggest you watch it again because it seems you misse something too.

Bruce traveled the world because he ran away from Gotham, not because he wanted to find himself, but because there was nothing left for him there. Bruce didn't go to other countries to train, he went there because that's where the nearest ship took him, it was by chance not by choice. He didn't choose to study the criminal fraternities, he fell into it by being a criminal, something he should have never been. He only made the injustice statement because Ra's offered him a choice, Bruce would have never made that choice by himself. Even if I'm wrong, which I don't believe I am, saying I'm wrong only makes you seem less correct by the way.

You're wrong!

 

[The Joker]

This is a really believable one and there is a logical explanation to it.

Gotham City in Batman 1989 was corrupt as hell, even the greedy citizens took the money The Joker was throwing (The Joker proved his point that humans can be greedy with that), there could also have been corrupt cops and the only trusted cop, Commissioner Gordon is not a superhero that he can come at so many places just like that.

Apart from Eckhart, there was no indication that Gotham City had a corrupt Police force. Even Gordon knew that Eckhart was corrupt. "I'm in charge here, not Carl Grissom".

There was nobody gunning for Harvey Dent either, so Gotham cannot have been that corrupt. So what you're basing that statement on, I don't know.

The Police force in Batman '89 were just incompetent. Jim Gordon was in charge, and he was an honest Cop. He was there listening to Joker's announcement. So was the Mayor and Harvey Dent. Are you seriously trying to tell us that they wouldn't have had a platoon of Cops waiting for the Joker at midnight?

Pull the other one, man. I'll never understand where you find the logic for some these opinions you have.

Gotham City's corruption was first explained in Detective Comics #38 (1940) when Dick Grayson is trying call the cop to tell them that his parents were murdered but then Batman comes out of nowhere and stops him from doing so, he ask in the car why he should have not called the cops and Batman responds "Because this whole town is run by boss Zucco if you told what you knew, You'd be dead in an hour"

Newsflash: This was Batman '89, not the issue of Detective Comics # 38. There was no Dick Grayson or Boss Zucco in the movie. There was no explanation that Gotham was rife with corruption.

Base your opinions on what was shown in the movie.

 

[The Joker]

-I didn't like the fact that Batman took the blame for a golden boy-turned-psychopath even though he was a good person that fell to tragedy, I think Batman should still let the truth out. This message of lying for the public felt morally wrong to me

While I disagree with virtually everything you said in that post, I just have to tackle this point you made, because it reeks of double standard.

You hate that Batman covered up Harvey's crimes for the greater good of Gotham City, a truly noble and selfless act. But you're ok with him murdering criminals in the Burton movies, the very crime he's taking the blame for in TDK?

It's posts like these that make it hard to take your opinions seriously, man. No offense.

 

[returntovoid]

The Police force in Batman '89 were just incompetent.

The Police force being incompetent creates more of a need for a Batman.

Newsflash: This was Batman '89, not the issue of Detective Comics # 38

I know that I was talking about a comic not Batman '89.

But sorry to get off-topic with that and you have a strange way of interpreting some of my posts.

I just have to tackle this point you made, because it reeks of double standard.

I admit, I'm being biased but it's not like I said that it's fact.

You hate that Batman covered up Harvey's crimes for the greater good of Gotham City, a truly noble and selfless act.

What good did the cover up do for Gotham??? besides hiding the shocking revelation from citizens that the white knight has turned into a disfigured psychopath.

But you're ok with him murdering criminals in the Burton movies, the very crime he's taking the blame for in TDK?

That's completely irrelevant because Batman didn't murder anyone in TDK unless you are talking about whether he deliberately pushed Dent off the building or not because that's a worthless argument. Also, Batman killed bad guys in the Burton films not innocent people.

 

[MacLeod]

You're wrong!

Great defense, truly well thought out, you totally put me in my place.
Even if I were wrong, by you stating it so beautifully it just makes your opinion so much less valuable, so thank you.

 

[The Joker]

The Police force being incompetent creates more of a need for a Batman.

It makes Jim Gordon and his Cops look like idiots. Is that how you like Gordon to be portrayed? So mind numbingly stupid that he can't even be ready for the Joker at midnight, when Joker said he was going to be there?

Don't even try and sell that one to me. If Oldman's Gordon had done that in TDK, you'd be pouring scorn all over it.

I know that I was talking about a comic not Batman '89.

Why? It's got nothing to do with B'89.

But sorry to get off-topic with that and you have a strange way of interpreting some of my posts.

In what way have I misinterpreted what you've said?

I admit, I'm being biased but it's not like I said that it's fact.

You admit you were being biased? My respect for you just went up

Not a lot of people would admit that.

What good did the cover up do for Gotham??? besides hiding the shocking revelation from citizens that the white knight has turned into a disfigured psychopath.

Mayor: "The public likes you. That's the only reason that this might fly. But that means it's on you. They're all going to come after you now. And not just the mob. Politicians, journalists, Cops. Anyone who's wallet's about to get lighter. Are you up to it? You better be, because they get anything on you, and those criminals are back on the streets, followed swiftly by you and me"

Gordon: "The Joker won. Harvey's prosecution, everything he fought for undone. The Joker took the best of us and tore him down. Whatever hope you gave us of fixing our city dies with Harvey's reputation. People will lose hope"

That's completely irrelevant because Batman didn't murder anyone in TDK

It's totally relevant because it's showing your double standard again. You're complaining that Batman lied to protect Harvey's rep, and that he should just be honest and let Gotham know the truth.

You have a beef with Batman doing that. But you're ok with him being an actual murderer in the Burton movies.

Exactly what way do you like Batman's moral values to be, because you're a walking contradiction when it comes to it.

Also, Batman killed bad guys in the Burton films not innocent people.

ROFL!

Oh well, that's ok then. Murder is justified if it's someone who broke the law

 

[lixdexia]

I disagree. From all the rumors we re hearing, GL and Thor seem to be following the comics very closely. And IM has proved to be doing so.

Of course there will be differences, see movie Whiplash being Whip + Crimson Dynamo, but as far as the style and general philosophy, they have stayed pretty close to the comics. Hell, Ironman will be in the Avengers, but where is the Justice League?

1-the absence of a justice league movie in development does not preclude the future existence of a justice league movie.
2- don't base your opinion on rumors and press interviews...i don't think there's been a comic movie yet where the people involved haven't said "we're staying true to the source material."
3- i still don't see how how this batman isn't staying true to the character's "general philosophy" the batman in the last 2 movies has acted more like batman than any previous non-comic version of the character imo. i can see how you'd disagree with that but that's because we're both judging it against our personal interpretations of the characters.

 

[Eros]

1-the absence of a justice league movie in development does not preclude the future existence of a justice league movie.
2- don't base your opinion on rumors and press interviews...i don't think there's been a comic movie yet where the people involved haven't said "we're staying true to the source material."
3- i still don't see how how this batman isn't staying true to the character's "general philosophy" the batman in the last 2 movies has acted more like batman than any previous non-comic version of the character imo. i can see how you'd disagree with that but that's because we're both judging it against our personal interpretations of the characters.

Batman I read about wouldnt leave his enemy to die on a crashing train like he did in Begins.

 

[lixdexia]

Batman I read about wouldnt leave his enemy to die on a crashing train like he did in Begins.

oh? what batman do you read then? because the one i read straight up ran a guy through with a sword to get information. he's also told a guy "talk or i'm going to let you bleed out." and then he shot a guy in the face. from hush, tdkr, and final crisis respectively. also btas batman left ras to die in explosions of his own making on multiple occasions not to mention other villians he chose not to save.

 

[Grillz]

Thing is some people do read him that way. The problem is that when it comes time to make another Batman film, people, fans in particular, are going to either say positive or negative things about. Some people think that Batman films should stop after Chris Nolan is done because "He is director GOD!" etc., and if we get a more "faithful" (as some put it) adaption, people are going to nitpick it to death, "It's too fantasy like, B&R all over again!", or "It's too dark, are you sure this isnt by Burton?", even if we had Paul Dini and co. write a Live Action Batman movie people will still complain, "It's too smart!", "I hate this movie, Nolan did it best.". And God for bid when Joker is in another movie, be ready for hot-topic people, fans, and GA to want to burn both the director and the actor at the stake for this. I mean seriously, this is like the only sane forum for comic book movie talk, and it even has it's times. Mabey I'm old fashioned for a teen, but can't we just watch the film, and say "Hey that was good" or "IT SUX!"? But seriously, [BLACKOUT]Batinthesun the place for me.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[lixdexia]

Thing is some people do read him that way. The problem is that when it comes time to make another Batman film, people, fans in particular, are going to either say positive or negative things about. Some people think that Batman films should stop after Chris Nolan is done because "He is director GOD!" etc., and if we get a more "faithful" (as some put it) adaption, people are going to nitpick it to death, "It's too fantasy like, B&R all over again!", or "It's too dark, are you sure this isnt by Burton?", even if we had Paul Dini and co. write a Live Action Batman movie people will still complain, "It's too smart!", "I hate this movie, Nolan did it best.". And God for bid when Joker is in another movie, be ready for hot-topic people, fans, and GA to want to burn both the director and the actor at the stake for this. I mean seriously, this is like the only sane forum for comic book movie talk, and it even has it's times. Mabey I'm old fashioned for a teen, but can't we just watch the film, and say "Hey that was good" or "IT SUX!"? But seriously, [BLACKOUT]Batinthesun the place for me.[/BLACKOUT]

yeah, that's gonna happen regardless. truth is though that none of that really matters. it'll still sell tickets.

and yeah, they do good stuff. wish they'd make a cap movie

 

[Eros]

oh? what batman do you read then? because the one i read straight up ran a guy through with a sword to get information. he's also told a guy "talk or i'm going to let you bleed out." and then he shot a guy in the face. from hush, tdkr, and final crisis respectively. also btas batman left ras to die in explosions of his own making on multiple occasions not to mention other villians he chose not to save.

So your alright with Batman being a killer, or choosing who he does and does not save? Because Batman has never been that, not since the early year in the late 30s, If he was, Joker would dead. Also DKR was written By Frank Millar,a else worlds take, who lets be honest has an extreme way over the top view of Batman and superman. Hush was full of Mistakes, and everybody agrees in Final crisis was disapointment. Im talking about years of Batman stories, where Batman risks his own life to save his worst enemies, regardless of their actions, hes not the punisher.

 

[lixdexia]

So your alright with Batman being a killer, or choosing who he does and does not save? Because Batman has never been that, not since the early year in the late 30s, If he was, Joker would dead. Also DKR was written By Frank Millar,a else worlds take, who lets be honest has an extreme way over the top view of Batman and superman. Hush was full of Mistakes, and everybody agrees in Final crisis was disapointment. Im talking about years of Batman stories, where Batman risks his own life to save his worst enemies, regardless of their actions, hes not the punisher.

yes he was, in his earliest appearances he snapped necks, threw people into acid and shot them. it's not an isolated phenomena. you can't go "he doesn't do that in the comics" and the when presented with contrary evidence go "those don't count". it's happened before, it'll happen again.

personally yes, i'm ok with him not saving ra's. but more interesting to me is that they've presented batman with the great rail car question twice thus far and he answered it differently both times indicating, to me at least, that he is taking circumstances into account which is good.

 

[Eros]

yes he was, in his earliest appearances he snapped necks, threw people into acid and shot them. it's not an isolated phenomena. you can't go "he doesn't do that in the comics" and the when presented with contrary evidence go "those don't count". it's happened before, it'll happen again.

personally yes, i'm ok with him not saving ra's. but more interesting to me is that they've presented batman with the great rail car question twice thus far and he answered it differently both times indicating, to me at least, that he is taking circumstances into account which is good.

so you think Batman should just leave people he can easily save to die essentially,because he doesnt want to save them?

 

[lixdexia]

so you think Batman should just leave people he can easily save to die essentially,because he doesnt want to save them?

that's where we get to the rail car question!
ok, picture this there's a rail car speeding down the track with no brakes. it's coming to a fork and you're the only person close enough to decide which path it goes down. on one side is ra's and on the other ra's potential future victims. now there's no telling how many victims could be there, could be zero could be a billion, there's no way of telling. now, do you let the train hit ra's or his potential victims? given that ra's had more or less given a guarantee that there would be more should he survive and was in full control of his mental faculties, YES I FULLY SUPPORT BATMAN'S DECISION NOT TO SAVE RA'S IN THAT SITUATION. it sounds like you have a different outlook and that's what makes philosophy funt:

 

[weezerspider]

So your alright with Batman being a killer, or choosing who he does and does not save? Because Batman has never been that, not since the early year in the late 30s, If he was, Joker would dead. Also DKR was written By Frank Millar,a else worlds take, who lets be honest has an extreme way over the top view of Batman and superman. Hush was full of Mistakes, and everybody agrees in Final crisis was disapointment. Im talking about years of Batman stories, where Batman risks his own life to save his worst enemies, regardless of their actions, hes not the punisher.

All I got from that was "The Comics where Batman kills don't count because I don't like them". They still were comics that Batman was in and they were published by DC. Their official whether you like it or not.

 

[regwec]

I don't want to oversimplify many of the very valid arguments here, but I think there is a degree of misunderstanding involved on both sides.

Those arguing against "realism" as it appears to be evidenced in BB and TDK are not in fact arguing for "unrealism" or surrealism as a goal in its right. They are, broadly, arguing that any rigidity in Nolan's "realistic" approach should be relaxed if becomes an impediment to adapting these characters to screen in an entertaining way.

Those who want to preserve the degree of "realism" or "groundedness" that Nolan seems to bring to the movies are not, in general, arguing that the comics are flawed, or that the source material should be suppressed. They object to the objection to realism as a matter of principle. It's easy to see why: if you take being unrealistic as your goal, then you will quickly stray into high fantasy and that strange type of lurid whimsy that lets down a lot of fantasy fiction.

As it happens, I think most people in both camps believe in roughly the same approach: to have the movies set in a fairly plausible world that is comparable with our own, but to allow inconsistencies and fractures in the plausibility of the events that occur therein, if and when those exceptions are important to the development of the characters and narratives being adapted.

Everyone will have their own tastes, their own boredom threshold and their own bull**** threshold; within that framework.

For instance, I don't think there was any reason to have the possibility that The Joker's skin was bleached white eliminated, especially if the pursuit of "realism" was the cause. Other people, I know, disagree.

 

[weezerspider]

OK, I'll get off the "it sucks because of realism" s**t and go more in depth to why I was not fond of the film as I was with Batman Begins plus the Tim Burton films. I don't want to prove it's a bad film but I just want you people to understand my reasons/logic for my criticisms/opinion.

-I thought the Batsuit was aesthetically horrible and not scary in any way unlike the one in Batman Begins

-The fight scenes may be a bit clearer but they lack the excitement/kinetic energy of the ones in Batman Begins

-Not enough focus on Batman, there was more focus than in the Schumacher films but less focus than in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns

-Batman lacked the powerful presence, it's not just about screen time but powerful/iconic impact that Batman has whenever he's comes on the screen, I got that in Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns but not TDk

-Bringing Rachel Dawes back was pointless to me because Batman's relationships with ordinary women are not that strong, besides she seemed totally done with him in Batman Begins and was just a lame damsel-in-distress character that doesn't like him as Batman after all. I would have preferred if they used Catwoman instead. Don't bring the excuse that she brought tragedy to Harvey Dent because the Gilda character from the comics could have been used for that plus I hated the unnecessary/sappy love triangle of Rachel, Harvey and Bruce

-I didn't like the fact that Batman considered giving up his persona because The Joker killed some innocents, I mean Batman is only human he can only save innocents that he is able to save instead of whining, he could have just gone and kick The Joker's a** to get it over with because the murder of those innocents was a sin committed by The Joker not Batman. Besides, giving up is like him throwing away his soul because let's face it, Bruce Wayne is the facade and Batman is the real person

-I didn't like the fact that Batman took the blame for a golden boy-turned-psychopath even though he was a good person that fell to tragedy, I think Batman should still let the truth out. This message of lying for the public felt morally wrong to me

-Heath Ledger's Joker may have been well acted/unique and I liked some bits like the pencil trick and bazooka but to be honest, overall I didn't enjoy this Joker as much as the one played by Jack Nicholson, this Joker didn't hysterically laugh that much, didn't use any iconic deadly toys/gags to kill people or use laughing gas, his humor didn't hit my laughter nerves and just was too much of a terrorist that I might as well call him Osama Bin Joker

-Batman hardly used any of his iconic gadgets, was too naive/unsure and they made The Joker seem more intellectual than him but don't bring excuse that this is a young Batman because we already saw him learning Batman Begins

-Gotham City lacked the atmosphere that was present in Batman Begins, Batman 1989, Batman Returns, no iconic shots of Batman and I didn't feel that I entered Batman's world in any way

-Batman was no longer the mythical creature of the night/terror striking from the shadows that he was in Batman Begins

-The film lacked the fun/excitement of Batman Begins, Batman 1989 and Batman Returns instead it tried too hard to be a serious/very realistic crime-drama

All of that is your opinion, so there's really no way for me to say "YOU ARE WONG", but one thing did catch my eye. You said bringing Rachel Dawes back was pointless. Her character sucks, yes, but she's a very important part to the plot. The plot revolves around the parallel of the two heroes of Gotham, Batman and Dent. After Rachel's death, we see how Dent's not the true hero, he crumbles and "lives long enough to become the villain". Batman on the other hand, takes the blow and uses it for motivation to protect Gotham from this madman known as The Joker. Without Rachel, the parallelism between the two heroes would be gone, and IMO, the plot would crumble. This has nothing to do with Batman though, I'm looking at this strictly as a writer. Without Dawes, the story would be quite different.

Also Batman's suit in the beloved comics is far from scary. Its actually laughable.