I've noticed things like this come up in every single superhero or sci-fi/fantasy movie discussion ever, and I think it's really interesting how different people look at film.
When a criticism is levelled at a movie that it's unrealistic for superman to just telepathically know Lex Luthor is hiding in Cambodia and just show up there for no apparent reason, a large group will say " REALISM? IN A SUPERMAN MOVIE? SURELY SIR YOU JEST!". Superman can already fly and shoot lasers, which is totally unrealistic, why should anyone care if he's suddenly omniscient? It seems like a fairly cavalier way of looking at movies and ensuring you enjoy them more- why nitpick and let flaws ruin a good ride, right?
However, I am one of those unfortunates who belong in the second group. I find it harder to enjoy a movie if it's not internally consistent. What does that mean? In the case of fantasy/sci-fi/superhero movie, obviously some of the laws of the 'real world' get broken. Internal consistency is when superman can fly and shoot lasers, but he can't turn back time by flying anti-clockwise suddenly and for no reason, without ever using this power before or since. The unnanounced appearance of this ability (and the fact that it doesn't make sense even within the world of superman) breaks the movie's internal consistency. Just the same with superman automatically knowing Lex Luthor is in Cambodia- Superman isn't omniscient, that's not one of his powers.
What does this mean for Dark Knight Rises?
Well, there are certain times the movie just trips over its own feet. The nuclear bomb is established as being A: Radioactive, and B: having a six-mile blast radius. That makes us ask ourselves questions like "How did batman get six miles from the blast and survive?" and "Won't Gotham be irradiated now?". I can understand how some people might look at this as being pedantic and trying to find reasons to not lie something, but it's not like that at all. I think it's highly personal, and just about what each person individually is prepared to forgive. Let's pretend you were watching Dark Knight Rises, and Batman is having the epic final battle with Bane. Bane gains the upper hand, when Batman suddenly shoots lasers out of his eyes at Bane to back him up, then pulls out his magic wand and turns Bane into a ham. (please don't post a joke response telling the forum how awesome that movie would be and how you'd totally watch it, the joke's obvious and kinda played out at this point)
You'd probably call BS, right?
That's what it felt like for a lot of people when Bruce was able to survive a nuclear blast with no reason given in the movie as to how he did. Nolan's movies do this a lot, and you usually forgive him because the journey is so epic and tumultuous anyway that you're willing to let it slide. I see nothing wrong with not letting that slide though, I think stopping and asking these questions is good. It lets us see how the movie could've been improved, and the discussion itself is just part of the fun. Most of us love The Dark Knight, but there are lots of stupid little things that happen that don't have to be stupid, and by highlighting these, it means we might one day appreciate more the movies that don't have these problems with consistency.
In A Batman movie. 
