None of that is more proposterous than the proposterous elements of the Nolan films. Battinson's bulletproof batsuit doesn't even come close to how ridiculous the microwave device from Begins is, the SONAR from TDK, the way he healed his back in TDKR, Harvey's design, etc. In a vacuum you could say that Bale's batsuit is more realistic than Robert's for that reason, but these elements don't exist in a vacuum.
I actually agree with the other guy that the Reeves films are merely "differently preposterous" - more noir-film-on-steroids than spy-film-on-steroids - but Two-Face feels like he's definitely a character who could be made creepier by leaning towards more "mundane" design choices.
It’s interesting how Nolan and Reeves, respectively, handled Batman’s ability to glide using “bat wings.” In the first case, the conceit was a sci-fi-ish “memory cloth” tech, built right into the cape. In the second, a “wingsuit” was utilized. Now in terms of brute “realism,” the wingsuit appears to win; such things actually exist. OTOH, the concealment of the wingsuit within Batman’s regular costume — and its subsequent deployment — somewhat undercuts the realism. Additionally, Batman’s brutally violent crashlanding, resulting in only bumps and bruises, was a further move away from plausible and towards the fantastical.
The crashlanding was based on videos Reeves saw of motorcyclists and daredevils suffering ridiculously violent falls that should've killed them that they then walk off as if nothing happened. Perhaps he may have botched the execution of it a bit, but even that bit had Reeves intending for it to be realistic. It should not be interpreted as Reeves making any sort of statement as to whatever fantastical nature this universe has, because he's not.
It’s clear, I think, that Reeves was going for a more grounded approach. Thus, the Batcycle was just a motorcycle; the Batmobile looked like a car (not a rocket ship); and the Riddler was more Hannibal Lecter than Frank Gorshin or Jim Carrey; etc. And along those lines, the wingsuit was deemed (I assume) more “realistic” than the cape-as-glider conceit. But according to my modest thesis, the wingsuit, all details considered, required more willing suspension of disbelief (not less). Whereas, the cape-as-glider (notwithstanding its implausibility) maybe raises fewer questions or "fridge logic" moments — and, therefore, is interpreted as more “realistic.”
That's especially the case for Returns. It's just that I've been watching 89 some more and I'm still surprised at how much more grounded and explained that film is compared to Returns and to most of the comics at the time. In particular, Joker's surreal nature is matched by an interesting dedication to explaining him - the psychological profile setting up his skills, interests, and insanities is surprisingly thorough in explaining a theatrical madman.
Totally get that, for me there just isn't enough of an actual story to it and by the end it all feels really aimless. I much prefer the earlier drafts of the script by Hamm before Burton came aboard. My big thing with it is I feel Joker gets less and less interesting as the movie goes on, he's fascinating as Napier - there's this sense he's barely containing the person he really is and the acid bath fully unleashes it - but by the end I find his antics a bit tedious.
Returns strikes me as having a "more heart than head" approach to its themes - which is not a bad thing and of itself, and actually generally works well with most stories, and can even sort of work with a more intellectual narrative that's not trying to reinforce it.
