The question of "realism".

[Kamdan]

I always loved the scripts for the Nolan films, but I was never too crazy about the production design. I wish they had taken an approach similar to the Watchmen film adaptation. I wanted to be transported into GOTHAM CITY, not CHICAGO. Hell, there's even a sign behind The Joker during the "HIT ME!" scene that reads Chicago! Nice going there. 

[The Dark Knight]

The Chicago sign during that sequence is distracting, but it's only there for a couple of seconds. All films have little flubs like that. Anyway, I really like Nolan using Chicago. I just love how real everything looks and feels, because, well, it is. I mean, using a real location is pretty much what you want. I can't really say it any other way, except they both feel like 'proper' films. There's absolutely no sense of being stagebound, which did plague the Burton films quite a bit.

[Grissom]

I think the "stagebound" quality somewhat appeared, scattered somewhat throughout Batman Returns but for Batman '89, I was transported to Gotham with all those baroque architecture, streets, alley's etc. Don't forget that Acton Power Station just outside England was used for Axis Chemicals, Knebworth House was used for Wayne Manor and the entire Gotham City set was built outdoors, not on a stage, with working lights, cafe, etc (take a look at the behind the scenes SE dvd).

Anyway that's my two cents, I enjoyed Nolan's films, but Burton still captured that comic book spirit even more in my opinion.

[thecolorsblend]

The Chicago sign during that sequence is distracting, but it's only there for a couple of seconds. All films have little flubs like that. Anyway, I really like Nolan using Chicago. I just love how real everything looks and feels, because, well, it is. I mean, using a real location is pretty much what you want. I can't really say it any other way, except they both feel like 'proper' films. There's absolutely no sense of being stagebound, which did plague the Burton films quite a bit.

B89 had plenty of genuinely outdoor shots, so even though the flick has some highly stylized production design, it works because you see the sun hitting the actors and them casting shadows in the day shots.  It plays pretty well.

The stagebound thing is truer of BR, which I don't think had any exterior/outdoor/location filming of any kind.  To me, the only time it's really noticeable is the shot where Bruce walks through the plaza on his way to the meeting with Shreck and parts of his sidewalk conversation with Selina.  Two such shots is two shots too many for some folks (and am I to argue?) but I think the pervasiveness of this has grown in the retelling.

[Joker81]

I am not knocking Chigago Gotham, but I liked the feel that Gotham had in Batman89, even some of the staged shots/scenes. It made it more of the fantasy world Burton was going for. That goes back to his love of old horror films.

I like the fact Gotham is like hell on earth in Batman 89 and how it is shot with shadows like a film noir is part of the reason I fell in love with Batman.

Chigago Gotham is too normal to me!

[The Dark Knight]

It made it more of the fantasy world Burton was going for.

Yeah, well, as we know, Nolan isn't going for that vibe. Hence why he shoots at Chicago. It's a relatively normal City that gets nasty at night in certain areas, like most real world cities do.

[Grissom]

I hear alot of people say that Gotham in Begins was actually better than TDK. Nolan said that Batman had mostly cleaned up alot of the crime leading up to TDK so that's why things seem a little cleaner and sterile, which is a good reason. The thing about Gotham though is that no matter how many criminals Batman puts away, more will arise, that's why his mission is sort of a curse.

I enjoyed Chicago as Gotham, but Gotham is another character in the Bat-universe and I wish it had just some more unique aestethics but alas it was not to be.