Christopher Nolan Batman Trilogy

What’s everyone’s opinion of the Nolan Trilogy? I love this trilogy but I don’t like that this version of Batman killed someone. Even if it was a villain. I guess my favorite is now Robert Pattinson Batman.


Terrible. If they are going to make Batman kill then at least do not make him deny it.


Agreed, also, don’t like that Batman essentially framed himself. Also, they kind of botched the 3rd when they combined 2 plot like that.


One of my absolute favorite movie trilogies of all time, and I still have the crazy view that Rises is my favorite of the 3


Batman Begins is the greatest Batman film of all time.

The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises are pretty good as well.

I love how, even if ‘grounded in reality’, much of the trilogy is based off of the Post-Crisis Batman.

Year One, The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke, Knightfall, No Man’s Land.

All of these stories and probably more I’m neglecting atm were obvious inspirations for this trilogy and it couldn’t make me happier.

As for Batman ‘killing’, I assume we’re talking about the end of Batman Begins?

I mean, sure, the modern DC Comics version of Batman would never, but compared to Keaton, Affleck, or the first year of Kane/Finger’s Batman, Nolan’s Batman is a saint.


I disagree. The above are under no allusion they kill (except maybe Affleck. It has been a while). Nolan’s Batman views himself as not killing and talks about it (even when killing) and then kills. I much prefer the guy who is under no illusion of what he is doing.


My absolute favorite is Batman Begins. The other two movies are okay, but I think that because Dark Knight and Rises feel like the most realistic out of all of the movies it freaks out my anxiety and stress levels when I watch them. Recently when I rewatched the trilogy I had to break Dark Knight into two nights in order to get through the whole thing, while I had to chill out with sangria to get through Rises. Batman Begins I can watch over and over, because even though it feels realistic, it still feels very comic booky and has that fresh new Batman glow to it (that’s the best that I can describe the feeling of being shown Batman for the very first time). The other two movies hit more closer to home given how scary it is to turn on the news nowadays.


Eh, I’d much prefer my Batman be a delicate hypocrite than an outright killing machine despite the hypocrisy.

We all have our Bat preferences haha.


Well, I think an argument can be made that Batman doesn’t kill in Batman Begins. Spoilers ahead.

In the climax Batman doesn’t actually kill Ra’s al Ghul, so much as he doesn’t bother to save him. Okay, not saving someone isn’t a nice thing to do and in doing so Batman did lead to his death, but it’s not quite the same as Batman as killing him outright. Given it was Jim Gordon who actually blew up the tracks, it could be argued that it was Lt. Gordon who actually killed Ra’s. Anyway, I could see how Batman could see not saving Ra’s as not violating his “no kill rule.” At any rate, to me it’s a different situation from, say, Batman '89, where Batman does kill outright (the big guy in the bellfry).


I like how every comic book element was given a real world application for existing. I also like how the Lazarus Pit was more of a allegorical/metaphorical thing.


Funny thing is that Zack Snyder basically took the approach. His Superman is a “real world” Superman, and his Batman is a “real world” Batman. Snyder’s Batman is basically nuts from all the years of grief, depression, and violence that continues to pull at him from his past trauma. It’s the reason why he continues to torture himself night after night until he almost loses himself completely AKA (killing innocent Clark)


As for the “technically not killing but letting him die”…

To be honest, I had a major problem with this when Batman Begins came out.

As a Post-Crisis Batman junkie, I instantly thought of the AzBats climax in Knightquest when AzBats decided he would let the villain Abattoir die instead of saving him.

AzBats was already too hardcore, but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back in regards to Bruce returning and reclaiming the mantle.

So I totally get and understand the frustration of that final Ra’s scene. It’s antithetical to the DC Comics Batman’s mission.

But really, we should all be treating these movies and shows as an Elseworlds or Black Label story. It’s not the DC Comics main Earth Batman.


Really, I treat all of the TV and movie adaptations as Elseworlds, even when they are more faithful than others.


I view them all as historical fiction.


Honestly tho…

Ben Affleck’s Batman was probably chill in the beginning, or so I’ve been lead to believe…

But Keaton’s Batman was a straight up psycho haha. I enjoyed it nonetheless, in fact Keaton was my first Batman ever. Comics, movies, cartoons, etc, Keaton and Burton were my first Batman experiences.

Anyway getting off topic…

I’d love a “What If?” where Keaton’s Batman is trained by Neeson’s Ra’s, and what happens when Keaton is asked to murder the farmer (or whoever the prisoner was, it escapes me atm)


Canonically, DCEU Batman strictly followed his no-kill rule up until the events of BvS. There’s no other way Joker would still be alive after killing Dick Grayson. After BvS, it’s all but confirmed that Batman is back to not killing, though Parademons don’t really count I guess.


Parademons are undead, and Batman is almost always fine with “killing” undead.

1 Like

Two-Face I think


Ah, Two-Face.

Well, while that’s certainly true that Batman did do the deed…

The consequence of that action was the immediate “death” of the Batman. For 8 years, Batman ceased to exist and had Bane/Talia not entered the picture, Bruce would’ve certainly devolved into a lonely old man hermit who never picked up the mantle again.

So yeah, he took the kill shot. And killed Batman right along with it. Which seems pretty comic accurate, to me at least.

Meanwhile Keaton started blastin…


I saw that move in theaters like 5 times or more! :rofl: