@HexThis I couldn't agree more, as usual. =)

I don't understand why people are hating on Dark Knight Rises and Nolan so much, it was an amazing movie and a nice ending to an amazing trilogy. Was the movie perfect? No. It was damn near perfect in my eyes apart from the fact that John Blake was John Blake and not Dick Grayson and the way Talia was revealed and discarded in, like, five minutes. I also would have loved to see Ra's alive again, courtesy of the lazarus pits, and get the dilemma of Talia's torn love for her father and Batman. Instead she just hated him and tried to kill him and possibly died herself.

Other than that, I felt the movie was a respectful and captivating interpretation of the Batman mythos, interpretation being my main point. Not to mention the performances of all the characters and actors (especially, in my opinion, Selina, Alfred, Gordon, and of course Batman) As comic book fans of some of the best source material in fiction, we all want to see the same material brought to life and captured in a more visual and audible way rather than reading them in a book and seeing them in pictures (which is enough for me, but the idea of seeing it all 'come to life' is beyond appealing). However, when has a movie franchise or single film (especially those in mainstream film and adaptations of fictional stories and concepts been basically copied directly from the book exactly as we fell in love with them in the first place) ever perfectly followed the source material to a T? Someone please tell me, because I've never known a single one. Look at X-Men: First Class, hell, look at the original X-Men trilogy! Where was Angel? Where Was Beast? They didn't even come in until the third movie (though Beast, as normal-appearing Hank McCoy, which in itself is a HUGE plot hole that still hasn't been addressed or rectified, had a cameo in X2), and Angel was barely present and didn't even officially join the X-Men! Jean's Phoenix powers were quite promising in X2 before she supposedly died and they took the Phoenix in a completely and, in my opinion, appallingly different way in X3. Plus she, supposedly, killed Scott!

I'm getting off subject, but my point is that movies, especially Hollywood movies, are almost guaranteed to deviate from the source material at least partially. Why this is, I think, is because if they did basically do exactly what was done in the comics, we would know exactly what to expect and there would be no real surprise or shock to anyone but views unfamiliar with the source material. Would you still like the X-Men movies if they followed the exact same recipe and you knew exactly what to expect? I... probably wouldn't... probably. Nolan's take on Batman was, in all honesty, his interpretation brought to life. Film is art and art, amongst different artists, varies because we all have our own interpretations on life and the way we see ourselves and the world.

I like to think of Nolan's interpretation like the way a person does a good cover version to an amazing song: it simply could never be like the original, but has a similar feel and is different (and wonderful) in it's own way.

Nolan's films are good but they miss the mark a lot on what makes Batman who he is. Giving up and walking away is not something he should do. Amongst other things, these films have failed to accurately portray the true character of Batman and Bruce Wayne. The villains and supporting cast (bar Rachel Dawes, I hated her) are what make the films so good. TDKR was definitely the best one of the trilogy but it was still full of flaws. I do feel that the Nolan films have been put on a pedestal and that isn't good for the films themselves or future reboots of Batman when DC want to tie him into a cinematic universe where Batman exists amongst all the other superheroes. I think that'll be quite jarring to a lot of people.

@HexThis said:

Without a doubt, I think Nolan's Batman is the definitive Batman story as far as cinema goes.

I really can't understand the petty umbrage some seem to take with Nolan, I find most of the points to be either open for interpretation or sufficiently debatable. People keep on incessantly complaining and complaining about things that really self-resolving or just barely significant. Bruce didn't explicitly live or die, the league of Shadows sought to re-define western civilization so they made an example of Gotham before exploding it (which is why it was 5 months), the League also didn't kill Bruce because Talia wanted him to suffer a fate worse than death for killing her father (understandable), and really....I've got to say this, does it really matter how they pronounce Ra's name? Really? Most English-speaking people would pronounce it that way instinctively. The Bruce Wayne in Nolan's world doesn't have the animated series to refer back to, people.

How anyone can devote so much time to complaints after Nolan slaved harder than any director to create a fantastic trilogy really eludes me. People say they wanted something less "realistic"...well, we got that with Tim Burton and just about every other superhero movie made and it's hardly foolproof or the recipe for quality movies (see Batman Forever or Batman and Robin). Can you even name another superhero movie franchise that held it's own through and through? Sam Raimi screwed Spiderman over majorly, Iron Man 2 was sub-par, Superman dragged on and really lost touch (does anyone even remember the later films in 80's?), Brett Ratner totally couldn't handle Bryan Singer's aesthetic and royally blew it with X3....actually, most directors don't even see trilogies through! And don't make me say "Wolverine: Origins" or "Green Latern"!

I've never seen a director who took the superhero franchise as seriously, who was quite as committed as Chris Nolan. He didn't even want to screen it in 3D, despite the monetary gain, because he felt it wouldn't truly serve the fans. He actually took the time to arduously apply some logic and credibility to a genre of film that some could easily dismiss as kid's stuff, as glorified cartoons. He never turned the movies into a venture into excessive CGI nonsense, he really treated the Batman mythology with a sophisticated respect for it that I'd never ever seen aside from maybe Bryan Singer.

I love Nolan's Batman movies. They were more than my childhood nostalgia could've imagined, they surpassed what many other people would've lazily resorted to.

BUUUUUUT WE WANT CLAYFACE AND KILLER CROC,AND BATMAN NEVER QUITS.

As far as I can tell it's a good Batman story and the definitive Batman Live-film

Umm... NO

You spend the beginning talking about hoe "Batman" is a 'symbol' and then spend the next part talking about how awesome Bruce Wayne is. The Bruce Wayne Batman is the only Batman that we know and love and his story (cinematic wise) is still yet to be told.

If you look at the timeline of this Trilogy, Bruce was only Batman for about a YEAR before an EIGHT YEAR 'retirement'

(Bruce was Batman for a month at most in Batman Begins. TDK was set 9 months after that and he dealt with Joker for maybe a few months...maybe)

So what is the Legacy of a guy who showed up three times in 9 years? His only long running stint was between the first two films and we didn't see that.

This is not Batman, this is a watered down version

The true definitive Batman (cinematic) story has yet to be told

Is it perfect? Of course not. It is a very very good trilogy of movies. The thing is it seems (to me, at least) that they wanted to sit down and make this fantastic idea real. I feel that they accoplished that. Again, is it Batman? No. It is as close as people that are in the industry and probably not hardcore Batman fans can do. There are a few things you have to address with the comic version of Batman that are problems. They tend to touch on them in the films and this is one the reasons I like them so much. 1. Is batman insane? While I don't know what it would be like to have my parents killed in front of me, I did grow up without my parents and it does change you and your perceptions on things. In some issues/storyarcs you can see that Batman is easily as off as some of the villians he fights. So the question is- do you have a man that is driven and dedicated to his idea of "Batman" or is he actually mentally ill/ unstable and has multiple psychosis? I feel that te movie surely answered THAT version's of Bruce Wayne mental status pretty well. 2. Robin. I for on have like the "idea" of Robin, but it is a hard pill to swallow. The reason is mostly that we see what Bruce is trying to do for his Robins, but to anyone else looking in, he is taking a young boy and endangering him and making him into a weapon. Questions would come up like- Does Bruce have the right to do something to an obviously impressionable and mentally shocked child? The animated series of Batman Beyond touched on this matter a little and it was interesting. Of course every kid loves Batman and would want to be him, at least they think that. The problem lies in that it is an undertaking like almost no other and it would permanently affect them. 3. Could Bruce Wayne be Batman? I don't run a Fourtune 500 company, but I imagine it would take more than just an occational phone call and meeting with Lucius Fox. Lol. The movies did a fair job explaining how he might accomplish that and how Bruce might be able to hide his Bat-wounds form the public/paparazi. It also addressed the fact that as Bruce ages he would have to realized that there will be a point where he can't be Batman anymore. You see it with NBA or NFL players almost every game. Doing stressful physical feats of anykind will take a major toll on your body. So you end up with three options. You can say "Whatever" and push yourself and add cyber-enhancements to buy yourself some time until you cripple yourself. You could slow down or stop and pass the torch on to someone younger (not seven years old, lol.) Then there is the last option, the one that seems less likely- just stop. He has done a great service. He saved people, but its done. This one seems less likely because He has spent so much time building this ideal just to let it go. My only problem with the movie version is that "Robin" had very little interaction with Bruce. I know how it ends, and that was kinda fun, but he has basic police training (I do too, Im ex Law enforcement) and I can tell you while it is great, it hardly prepares you for something like that. Bruce trained with the greatest minds in the world for years to be able to do what he does. Hopefully the kid can improvise...lol. 4. The world's greatest detective/ martial arts master ever. Now It is a bit of rough subject to argue about whether or not Bruce could be both of these things. Honestly, in MY Batman universe I think Bruce is insane and has multiple mental problems that he channels into these obsessions. I am sure there are many of you that may feel otherwise. The only thing I will touch on is when you lock at his rogues gallery, there is alot of people in there that while he is one of the few people that can handle them, it isn't impossible. Quick Someone robbed the first national bank! The killed everyone inside with a toxin. Okay? is is Joker's, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, or a new guy? The thing is while Bruce is a incredible detective, sometimes his job is layed out in front of him because his villians are just as obsessed about their psyhcosis' and Bruce has been there from most of their beginings. So he knows almost everything about them. Also I know alot of them use hired thugs, but in the end you have a lot of older men and women who are looneys not exactly world class martial artists. While I have worked with quite a few of menatly ill people and have had to restrain them and such, the "crazy strong" stuff is not as common as you would believe. In the end the movies did a great job of telling a fairly "realistic" version of what batman would be like, and I loved them. Is it 100% accurate, no. It also isn't Arnold Schwarzanegger running around making bad puns and discracing one of my lifelong heroes.

@erik_norris: I don't think Definitive is the right word, when you look through out the history of film, remakes, reboots. to use the word Definitve, it's like buiring the film, or challenging anyone to make a better one. This is not a comic book movie, it is a movie Base on a comic book, Batman wouldn't stop, in the comic book, but in these films he has to deal with age, and the fact he can't do it alone. The worest thing about the last movie is, knowing that at one point, in the next few years, there will be a another film. it's like thinking about the day, when they remake Star wars. it's going to happen, it's only a matter of time.

no way in hell they were ok at best

Batman is meant to be a Two-Dimensional Character...that's why he's more comfortable in the Mask than he is without it. He's an Archtype of Vengance trying to make it in the real world. This is not the Definite Batman in any sense of the word, and I don't think it should be. Its true with all the heroes...which is the definitve Superman? The one who was second only to GOD in sheer power,or the more 'human' current version?

These heroes are just...sketches, in a sense...its up to the writers/artists to fill in the sketches and interpret them the way they want...

Regardless of whether this is the greatest Batman storyline or the most interesting, the trilogy strikes me as being definitive simply because it is the most widely consumed and experienced version of the character. Of the books though I still find The Dark Knight Returns one of the most compelling and strong points of view on the character, his views and legacy.

i really liked the nolan trilogy, but there are some things i think should have been done differently. i didnt think batman was intimidating enough

@erik_norris: I don't think Nolan understands batman, why would batman have quite? why was he hiding for 8 years, but at one point worked on Energy project? the end of the 2nd film, left me thinking, WHat? why is batman taking the rap for this? I think he understood the Joker, that was spot on, but the rest? no. once again bane could have been done better. it's taking me a bit to think of this answer, but there it is.

@btmt said:

@J2Metal said:

I disagree with the notion that anyone could be Batman. The character dedicated his entire life to training his mind and body to be the perfect weapon against crime.

The idea that a cop could just find his car and batsuit and suddenly be Batman makes the character seem less special. It strips him of his intelligence and discipline, which to me make Batman who he is, not his tools or uniform.

^^^^THIS^^^^^.

I'm completely agree with you my friend. I can't think of anyone else other than Bruce Wayne as BATMAN.

Just wearing a Batsuit doesn't make Batman.

What about Frank Castle if he stopped killing and went to DC. He has always been Marvels ''Batman'' in my eyes.

@tiberiusoberius exactly!!

Yes, it's the one that most will remember and a conclusive trilogy.

Best Comic Book Movies Ever! I loved Nolan's interpretation of characters, they weren't exactly like their comic book counterparts but the core of the characters were the same, I loved that Bruce moved on and Blake took over the Batman identity. I also liked how Blake was the amalgamation of all three Robins. I loved Alfred, I loved the Three Musketeers Batman, Gordon and Dent, I loved Crane, I more than loved the Joker, and Ra's al Ghul twist was so great (something IM3 failed to do), Neeson owned the role, the whole cast was great. They made their own stories based on the comic books rather than just copy the whole story. The reason Batman remains one of the most popular character ever is because he's adaptable to changes, he can be differently interpreted all the time, I loved Nolan's interpretation, it wasn't perfect but it was pretty close.

no way.

It's not even a Batman story let alone the definitive Batman story v.v They use the names and the premise that a rich guy's parents get killed and he uses his wealth to fight crime, but that's the general premise of several characters and not Batman. Nolan's Batman is revenge oriented, isn't smart, and isn't trained in anything. He's literally a rogue ninja foot soldier which isn't what Batman is on any level...

The answer can only be no.

Very simply, the Batman in the Nolan films is to far from Batman to be a definitive take on the character.

At best, it's an interesting else-worlds tale, at worse a bastardization of the character.

i love the trilogy but it's not the definitive Batman story.

@muyjingo: @batmannflash: @masterdetective: Thanks guys!, I agree!

I dont know this is a hard question. Since nolan wont do anymore then its going to be pretty hard for someone else to make a batman movie that can top nolan's work(which probably noone is gona top at least not for a long time). But since Batman is up there with the most popular superheroes of DC and of all universes(i would say he is 2nd most popular after Supes) then i guess the movies will keep going.

Kinda miss Norris.

BB

It's the best representation of the modern idea of Batman in live action.

It's not definitive across Batman in all mediums.

@bloodtalon: @batmannflash: I can't wait for the Next one!

@crash_recovery: what about the Next Reboot?

Judging from the fact that Nolan intended to take all the greatest moments of Batman's history & make a "best of" story, he did a lot of things right. But the Dark Knight Rises is too weak for the trilogy to achieve that status. There is too much PIS (5 months-detonation-countdown? please...) & it all felt kind of rushed. Bane breaking Batman's back was handled incredibly stupid, even though I can see why we felt the need to include it, he should've solved it better (like Knightfall did for example).

Awesome trilogy. The only people who would answer this yes is the general public. Like I said the movies were the best batman movies but this batman was very different than comic book batman.

IMO Nolans favorite superhero film was Donners Superman, so the whole batman is something to aspire to a symbol to me it feels that there is some not 100% so influnce of Donners Superman there. Though i give Nolan credit at least he was inspired by the source material IMO Donner didn't even try using Supermans source material he just made Silver Age Superman and invented his own things with it. I can say Nolan's films where great movies the only thing i hated and everyone can agree with me is that Nolan abandoned his theme of escalation that was in the Dark Knight.

@drudox19: Good Point! I never liked the ending to the Dark knight, I remember thinking, i hope they found a way to save the Batman, after taking the Fall for Dents Murder.

Hell no, not even close. The DCAU is easily the definitive Batman story.

@durakken: The first thing Bruce wanted to do when he returned to Gotham was kill Joe Chill, sounds pretty vengeful to me. Also he was trained and smart enough to take out an entire swat team bu himself, which comic-batman does all the time.

They are just a another version of Batman. The whole reason why Batman is such a successful pop culture character is that he can be changed to fit whatever the writer, artist or this case the director wants to do with him. This is why Batman does well in various media, he's constantly changing, which people generally forget. There is no definitive version of Batman.