The “Batman Rises” trailer is online, though if you glance though the articles that I have written, you’ll notice that’s there’s nothing there about Batman.
Zip. Nada. Zero. Nothing.
This is because the Christopher Nolan’s Batman films don’t embody what I want to see in a superhero comic–which is, generally speaking, larger than life characters, overcoming terrific odds, etc.
Which is not to say that there isn’t room for smaller, darker stories–after all The Crow is a favorite of mine, though that film balances the bleakness (embodied in a dark, brooding city, seeming populated by either criminals, or their victims) with a quest for redemption.
In his effort to make the films more realistic, Chris Nolan has, removed the more fantastical elements, so that’s what’s left is somewhat mundane, dark, and uninspiring.
Though I could even deal with that if they weren’t also somewhat dull, though I don’t think that this is necessarily a problem with the character of Batman, as opposed to the approach the director takes in bringing him to life.
This tendency (which I believe to be filmic literalism) isn’t unusual for Christopher Nolan, in that “Inception” was perhaps the dullest movie about dreams that I have evert seen; though if you’re looking for an espionage film, then it’s OK.
Want an adventure film in the vein of pre-Daniel Craig James Bond? We’ve got that too.
Want a film that revolves around dreams and their curious, twisty geography? We’re out. Try Wes Craven.
The same thing applies to his version of Batman: It’s grounded, and to a large extent lifeless, as if he’s afraid to dream, and dream big. Maybe he’s afraid that it will be as campy as the 60’s television show.
Despite the criticism of Joel Schumacher–most of which was deserved–he invested the films with a sort of life, a dynamism. Sure, that life was oftentimes accented with garish neon colors , bad puns, and bat suits with nipples, but there was something vital, something alive about those films that Chris Nolan seems to be missing.
His forte appears to be workmanship. Nothing that I can recall from the prior Batman films strikes me as inspiring any sort of awe, but they are well-managed and put together.
Though maybe taking themselves a bit less serious would be perhaps a good thing.
SCREENPHILES 
Honestly I think it’s a refreshing take on the Batman storyline to keep it well grounded. The Nolan films are based on “The Long Halloween”, “Batman: Year One” and a few Batman comics, all of which were very much grounded and gritty.
Even the first Batman film (Keaton and Burton) was very much grounded with gangster influences and such (at least up to the Batwing sequence). Batman comics have a great foundation in the realistic or the grounded and usually the stories really leave that reality only when there are crossovers from other comics (Superman, Etrigan, etc).
I’ve never thought of Batman as a dream (like Superman), more as a bleak nightmare.
I agree with you, to a point. The Burton Batman films were somewhat cartoonish in nature (check out how over the top Jack Nicholson is in the role) which worked for me. The Nolan films have removed just about any cartoonish/fantasy elements and instead rooted it heavily in ‘the real world.’ This is a problem because they don’t take it as far as they could/should have. By this I mean that Batman is, for all intents and purposes, a high-functioning lunatic; a lunatic on the side of the angels, but still a lunatic. I wish that the film hinted more often at a lack of stability on his part, which would bring his almost tunnel vision-like focus into a more realistic context.