Great Movies, but the answer is plain and simply NO. This batman does not have master detective skills nor does he seem to be that much of a genius. Nolan could get away without giving his batman these characteristics in the first two moives since it was "young batman", but after the time lapse in the dark knight rises it's clear that there is a lot missing from this batman that is an integral part of the character in comics and even the arkham asylum video game.

@BatClaw89: dont get me wrong, these batman films have been a cinematic treat, diving into such compelling stories. hands down these films will be always considered pinicle, but my personal opinion is just for the next decade i wanna see batman films similiar to the arkham asylum/city games. Id love something like that, dark stories which consist of much of the memorable factors that make batman great. See even though i loved nolans films but there were so many moments specially during Rises where i was hoping for something from the comics eg Lazarus pit (tradtional kind not the metaphor) and the whole resurrection spin although i realised nolan would never go for that, bu its what i wanna see in a batman film. hopefully if a justice leaugue film happens audiences will be introduced to a more traditional batman :D

After seeing all 3 that night ...To me it was more about Bruce Wayne and his journey. I am satisfied with the story that Nolan gave us, I agree with the statement that the mantle of Batman is Open.

I think the problem with Nolan movies, are that he tends to utilize a concept over a literal translation. So he'll really lean on themes in his movies, even if doing so means sacrificing coherence, contradicting characters or just breaking the rules of physics entirely.

For example, Bruce says he will not become an executioner. Then proceeds to blow up the entire League of Shadows including the guy they asked him to kill, then at the end of the Begins he jams a trains brakes to save the city but leaves Ra's to die. Now regardless of how much this goes against the comic-book Batman we know and love (practically killing a man), the next movie contradicts this. The next movie The Joker constantly taunts him about his "one rule" and this ends with Batman flipping the guy over his head (to save citizens) but then catching him on the fall with his grappling gun. The only reason Bats does this is because the film wants to serve a theme about how Joker wants Batman to kill him in order to beat him, but Batman already did this earlier in leaving Ra's to die, so catching Joker proves nothing other than he just wants to prove Joker wrong. And the second he does this he rugby tackles Harvey Dent to his death, and at the end of Riseshe just blasts missiles and gunfire at Talia's truck until she crashes and dies (along with her driver). This contradicts the non-killing Batman from earlier, who in himself contradicts the Batman who left Ra's to die. Not only this, but it is shown in Rises Bane is only put down by being shot to death. So the ending message of Batman's war against crime in the last film "crime can only be beaten by an insane amount of gunfire leading to death".

Rises then does the whole thing with giving Bruce Wayne a bum leg, which has no ligaments in, that becomes magically fixed with a brace. We know it's magically fixed because later, when that brace is off (and Bruce goes through some mental spinal fixing) Bruce is leaping gracefully up that pit wall with a leg that has no brace and apparently NO ligaments either. It serves a lovely theme, calling back to him falling into the well and "why do we fall Bruce", however the execution contradicts what we were shown earlier, which is a guy barely capable of walking unless he's wearing an electronic brace. This bum leg has served no purpose other than to get us to empathise with a retired Wayne, and then just gets tossed aside as a concept.

Blake as a character exists ONLY so there's a character who can inherit the Batcave and the mantle of the Bat. This completes the themes from Begins about "becoming a symbol that's everlasting", by having someone take up the mantle. This is theme is fine, but why create a character who's only job for the majority of the movie is to basically do the role in the film that Commissioner Gordon should've done. The movie goes out of its way to sideline Gordon in a hospital bed for a large part of its running time because it has nothing for him to do as they've invented this new character that's doing his job for him. This character has the WORST reason for know that Batman is Bruce ever (he saw his sad face once when he was a kid and knew he was Batman), the thought put into his role in the film is minimal at best basically (he's acted well though). At the end he inherits the cave (because someone has to) but has no fighting skills or experience with Batman tech at all. Now at the same time they introduce Catwoman who starts off as an angry, penniless character who's stealing from Bruce. She then eventually redeems herself. In the process of this she shows fantastic fighting prowess, learns who Bruce is through the natural course of the movie AND gains Batman's trust and experience with his technology (Batpod). Now my question is, instead of sidelining a major character in Gordon and replacing him with this new character, why not use a Jason Todd Robin type of character instead of Catwoman? He can have the angry orphan qualities of Blake, with the same character arc of Catwoman in this film (steals from Bruce (as Jason does from Bats in the comics), learns his identity in a way that makes sense, shows fighting prowess, earns Bruce's trust, eventually fights beside Batman with Batman's gadgets) and then at the end have THIS character inherit the Batcave. This completes all of the themes that BOTH of these characters go through, has a character that earns the Batman (or Robin) mantle at the end of the movie with the skills to do it justice, and as a bonus it shortens the running time, and leaves Gordon free as a character to do all the police work in the movie as he should be doing instead of being sidelined in a bed. It does HAVE to be Jason Todd, it just makes sense for it to be as a fan of the comics, but either way there was no need for two new characters and the sidelining of Gordon for an arc that could've been done with one.

I enjoy the series, but I have many issues with them. They're, in my eyes, nowhere close to the definitive Batman story. If I had to experience ONE version of Batman for the rest of my days, it may either be Batman: TAS or the Arkham Asylum/City games (which are basically an adult extension of the animated series). I look at those games as everything a live action Batman COULD be, if someone respected the source material enough to stay true to Batman, treat it as a gritty detective noir tale, but not exorcise all of the fantastical elements in order to do so.

And also as a fan-boy I hate the idea that Bruce just gets over his parents death and moves on. I get that people see comics as an on-going thing, but take that out of it for a second and really think about it. If you could choose one character from the world of comics who would continue their fight against justice for the rest of their days, who would it be? I couldn't imagine that Batman would ever stop in his quest for justice, even if all comics ever were to be cancelled. I could see Superman settling down with Lois, I couldn't see Batman ever stopping, ever.

i love Christ Nolan films and i'm glad he give Batman fans like myself 3 great films and one of the best trilogy ever and i'm really glad Christ Nolan also managed to piss off retarded degenerate fanboys/girls everywhere that always nit pick everything guess they prefer schumacher batman

Ya, I'd say this is one of the definitive Batman stories. It's basically an adaptation of several of Batman's most definitive stories (Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, No Man's Land) with some changes to make them more appropriate for cinema. The trilogy shows the beginning, middle, and end of the original Batman while incorporating the idea of Batman's legacy and portraying everything that makes Batman Batman. I really doubt they'll ever be a better adaptation of Batman's mythos on the big screen than these movies and I consider the trilogy to be one of the best Batman stories ever.

No it is not. Though it is one of the better ones.

It's decent but not definitive for Batman overall.  But I think the next Batman movie director will certainly have to contend with the massive stamp Nolan has put on the character.
 
One thing that does bother me, even though it's so minor, is the de-emphasis on the bat symbol on his chest.  I understand all about wanting him to look grittier, or darker, or more utilitarian, or whatever.  But if you're trying to make him a symbol, then emphasize his symbol!

@Gambit1024 said:

@TheCheeseStabber said:

@erik_norris: my only qualm is that the nuclear blast was so large and he was in the middle of the ocean and we see him fore most of the flight, and earlier he mentioned no auto pilot. I think , to me, that he died and that Alfred saw him at peace, because he was at peace with him self in death he was.

Thank God that I'm not the only one who thinks this, lol

There's an entire scene right at the end with Lucius Fox asking a mechanic "What about the auto-pilot?" to which the mechanic's reply is basically, "What about it? It was fixed SIX MONTHS AGO, by Bruce Wayne!"

Dah-dumm dummmmmm... what a twist!

Whether you enjoy the twist or not is subjective, but my only point here is that everyone who states "but the auto-pilot was broken!" must have glossed over in the final moments of the film and missed those important points.

As far as explosion VS escape... movie magic/ suspension of belief... yeah yeah yeah, Nolan shows a shot of Bale flying the bat-thing right up until the last possible second. Ok, but you see him alive later... so the logical conclusion simply is, "F'n Chris Nolan faked us out and Bruce Wayne jumped out WAY earlier than what was shown to us".

But if you believe Alfred is having his senior moment and only imagining Wayne alive... then Alfred has also created an elaborate fantasy where Wayne is with Selina Kyle as well (since she's sitting there across from Bale from the looks of it).

@ThomasElliot: The auto-pilot thing isn't my issue. I accept that Bruce fixed the patch. My issue is that the bomb had a blast radius of 6 miles. Auto-pilot or not, Batman would have been dead if he was in the plane (which he was). Yes, I know "movie magic" and all that, but honestly? I just think that Bruce's death is a much better ending than him just up and leaving Gotham, so I'm just gonna believe that that's what happened. Plus, if Alfred was having a "senior moment," I think that just makes the ending all that much classier. The fact that Catwoman is irrelevant to me. Helps me sleep better at night.

"batman will always overshadow them" that couldn't have been more true.

@TheCheeseStabber: That's what I was thinking towards, well, THE end.

@PrinceIMC: But isn't that the clever point of Nolan's take? He, as should we, acknowledges that at some point Batman HAS to stop being Batman. We as people who have read the comics for years and years know this. Batman knows this. Whether he is killed in the line of duty, gets too old to climb in and out of the Batmobile, or passes the cowl to someone else, at some point he will have to stop. I think that if we look at Batman/Bruce Wayne's personality we know that he is always committed to the mission - whether he is the one to fight it or not. The comics have explored this by passing the cowl to Jean Paul Valley, Dick Grayson, etc. Nolan just took the bold step to fathom what that might look like in a relatively plausible scenario.

@ThomasElliot said:

@Gambit1024 said:

@TheCheeseStabber said:

@erik_norris: my only qualm is that the nuclear blast was so large and he was in the middle of the ocean and we see him fore most of the flight, and earlier he mentioned no auto pilot. I think , to me, that he died and that Alfred saw him at peace, because he was at peace with him self in death he was.

Thank God that I'm not the only one who thinks this, lol

There's an entire scene right at the end with Lucius Fox asking a mechanic "What about the auto-pilot?" to which the mechanic's reply is basically, "What about it? It was fixed SIX MONTHS AGO, by Bruce Wayne!"

Dah-dumm dummmmmm... what a twist!

Whether you enjoy the twist or not is subjective, but my only point here is that everyone who states "but the auto-pilot was broken!" must have glossed over in the final moments of the film and missed those important points.

As far as explosion VS escape... movie magic/ suspension of belief... yeah yeah yeah, Nolan shows a shot of Bale flying the bat-thing right up until the last possible second. Ok, but you see him alive later... so the logical conclusion simply is, "F'n Chris Nolan faked us out and Bruce Wayne jumped out WAY earlier than what was shown to us".

But if you believe Alfred is having his senior moment and only imagining Wayne alive... then Alfred has also created an elaborate fantasy where Wayne is with Selina Kyle as well (since she's sitting there across from Bale from the looks of it).

The last shot of him doesn't include a window, unlike the previous ones; it just shows him in a seat. Possibly a Tumbler. And before that, there's a good stretch where it doesn't show Bruce.

nah, but amazing movies and a great take on Batman.

Are people really confused about the nuke scene? It's a very well known film story telling technique where you distort the passage of time to surprise the viewer.

I hate to say it, but the only great part of the Nolan Bat movies were the villains performances, Cillian Murphy and Heath Ledger. They were so good they distracted from the gaping plot holes and Bale's ridiculous bat voice. I could think of many comic book stories of Batman better than those movies.

@TheCheeseStabber: Thats deep

Norris you indeed gave us a wonderful and definitive summation of all that Nolan's Batman Trilogy gave us. It really was the best rendition of the Dark Knight yet and there was a terrific conclusion with TDKR. Its one of those kinds of conclusions that makes you really see that nothing else really needs to be said. My curiosity now turns to Zack Snyder's rendition of Man of Steel next year, and makes me think of this could be the start ofa trilogy just as Nolan's Batman Begins was in 2005. Lets hope so.

One of the things I knew fans would have a problem with right when I walked out of the theater after seeing this movie is the whole idea of Bruce Wayne actually giving up and living a happy life retired. What I think many fans need to understand is that this isn't the Batman from the comics, this is honestly just an epic Elseworld story in movie-form that takes the best things about Batman but showcases them in a story that has a beginning and an end.
 
A lot of people I think are bothered that Bruce actually stopped being Batman at the end, they find this hard to believe because they see the Bruce Wayne from the comics who can't give up the role because Batman IS who Bruce Wayne is, and that's the problem. The character we see in The Dark Knight Trilogy isn't that same character, the whole idea of The Batman was to create a symbol of justice that people who find themselves surrounded by the darkness of corruption could get behind and to be a light in that darkness. This world's Bruce never wanted to be Batman forever, just looking back at The Dark Knight, we see Bruce is ready to give up the cowl there to live a happy life with Rachel; he never wanted to be Batman forever. But it's not only that he didn't want to, it's also because he knows he CAN'T be Batman forever. Unlike in the comics where characters never grow old, never die, and if they do die they just come back a year later. Nolan's Bruce realizes that he IS getting older and that he IS going to die one day. Just looking at TDKR, we see a beaten and battered Bruce Wayne who can't even walk without a cane in the first part of the film. Bruce never set out to do this for the rest of his life, he set out to bring hope back to Gotham and create a symbol in which ANYONE could become.
 
The Dark Knight Trilogy is not about one man, it's about bringing hope back to a city that has lost hope; to bring justice back to a city that has been consumed by corruption; it is about creating an ideal that can never be corrupted or destroyed, that will live on far longer than anyone person, that would represent and best a person has to offer; it is a symbol of hope, a symbol of truth, and a symbol of justice that can never die, that is the symbol of Batman for these movies.

@War Killer: Very well said, and that was my primary concern with the ending (as I tried to believe that Bruce died and Alfred's vision was an artsy goodbye).

However, something just doesn't sit right with me about it.

No doubt, what Batman did was heroic. But then what? What happens when Gotham undergoes another terrorist attack, as it's bound to happen? Blake doesn't have the skill that Wayne had in terms of training. He's just an ordinary cop. If/when Blake fails, what is Bruce gonna do? Just say "Welp! Sucks to suck, Gotham!" and go back to doing his own thing in Italy? I don't know. Just doesn't sit right with me.

Short answer, nope. lol

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.

I concur.

@TheCheeseStabber said:

I guess so, though I feel the ending is ambiguous on wether he is dead or not.

I thought the same thing at first, but after seeing it again they made the point that

It's nice to see a so well written story (by that I'm talking of the three movies, as one whole story) I think (and is only my opinion) that the story is one of the best of Batman. Certanly is the best story of all the Batman movies. But I think that we see Batman in these movies, but we never see Bruce Wayne. To clarify these concept: I agreed the concept that the Batman is a force larger than a human being. I see that in the movies, but I didn't see Bruce. To me Bruce was the obsesed child that lost his parents, but also Bruce was the detective, the inteligence behind the cape. The drive that impulses him when his mastermind habilities fail, that was in a greater way Batman. Batman almost always swallow Bruce. Often Bruce is only the receptacle of the entity. A human being that is possesed by the demon, the cry for justice, the spirit of vengance: The Batman. That is the Batman that most of the authors (Moore, Miller, etc.) show to us in later years. But what about the detective? Where's Bruce? Because Bruce was the detective. Bruce was the part of Batman that uses not only his hability of develope gadgets, but also a detective with a power of deduction that rivals with Sherlock Holmes. The battle with Joker in The Dark Knight was glorious, but it was a battle of ideals. It was corruption against some kind of common wellfare, or maybe a better name for it would be "moral principles". The battle between the intellect of the Joker and the intellect of Batman was lost from the beginning (maybe that's why the joker was so good, because he was the force of the corruption of this world. A new kind of human. A survivor in a corrupted world). But the Batman of the movies acted, do, his strategies were always direct actions. That's my point the human behind the cloack, was an orphan, was a man obssesed, was possesed by a force of good, that acts like the criminals. But that human was not Bruce. That human was never the detective that wears the cloack of Batman, that is driven with this force in the comics. I think those are the true characteristics of Bruce. I think that the moments when you see Batman planning, reasoning, thinking are the parts where the readers could see Bruce behind the mask.

@ratman19 said:

i dont think its the definitive batman story because it doesnt stay close to the comics. it has to change charecters around to fit nolans realism.they were good movies but the werent the definitive batman story. i think year one takes that.

This. Exactly this. Good movies, to be sure, but far from the definitive Batman stories. If we're going to go outside of the medium for definitive Batman stories, it begins and ends at The Animated Series.

No Erik this isn't the best Batman story. Sorry but your just wrong on this :/ but I still think your cute ;) A story having a happy ending, or an ending of any sort, doesn't make it better then a story that doesn't

It could have been a great origin trilogy IMO. Like Begins and the Dark Knight were very very much an origin story. They're almost one film. Then Rises had to ruin it all with it's busy, rushed and to be honest, down right mediocre film making. Arguable the worst of Nolans movies, I would even say one of the worst Batman movies made, simply because of how how he aimed and ultimately how much he failed.

Also what I really didn't like was the ending with the Nuke, if Nolan wants to be realistic then be realistic, don't pick and choose.

A nuclear bomb detonating off the coast of Gotham like that would have at the very least caused tidal waves which would destroy most of the city, or at the very worst caused tidal waves which destroyed most of the city, and the radiation from the nuke would have made the area uninhabitable for years to come, and anyone who survived the tidal waves would die a very slow and painful death from radiation sickness, (loss of hair and skin, vomiting, seizures, diarrhea, fever, decreased immune systems, and death) and the area would probably be completely unihabitable for years depending on the yield. Plus Gotham is a major ocean side city, that nuke more then likely killed hundreds of people on boats out at sea. Not to mention causing a huge environmental disaster.

So there you go people, want to say that Nolan's movies are realistic, well then that's Batman's final gift to Gotham, although Bruce Wayne would have gotten the most radiation so him surviving was clearly just a delusion brought on by Alfreds dementia

Eh, I think that this was a good run, but I would've liked more Batman by the last movie, not bruce wayne. It was the best movie run for him, but I don't know about calling this the best Batman story.

@RedheadedAtrocitus: Thanks!

A definitive batman story? No. Movies were great, but Bale just didn't cut it, more so in the third one. The supporting charters made the movies. Great take on joker, bane, commissioner Gordon, Alfred and even scarecrow. If you asked me if the movies were a definitive commissioner Gordon, I think I'ld say yes.

Definitive Batman Stories? Hell no.

But they were pretty great, especially The Dark Knight, the film was a masterpiece and the pinnacle of cinematic perfection, and Batman: Begins was pretty darn good in its own right. The Dark Knight Rises was the weakest one story wise, i enjoyed the film, but couldn't help picking at the films many flaws. Nolan definitively crafted a one of kind film trilogy. Their are to many other great Batman stories for Nolans Batman story to be considered the definitive best. First off Nolans Batman was far to weak for my taste, his fighting skills were ok at best, not to impressive imo., and his detective skills were well below his standard. If they do another Batman film, i hope they do it more comic book like, something along the lines of Arkam City or The Long Halloween. I would love to see a live action film adaption of the Dark Knight Returns.

As to Bruce being alive or dead being subjective: I would point out that the auto pilot wasn't the only reference to Bruce being alive. The folks managing Bruce's Will point out that the only unaccounted for item among his possessions is a pearl necklace which is shown in the final scene to be around Selina neck.

Of course Bruce survived. Why else would they bring up the fixed auto pilot and who do you think repaired the bat signal or left clues for Blake?

no...there are always more stories to tell unlike the tagline the legend never ends....they will more be more

batman

@butters911: Cillian Murphy's performance was hilarious. It definitely help me ignore the bad plot holes.

Absolutely, I believe that the Dark Knight Trilogy is the definite 'Batman' stories. One big reason this is true is because at the end of the story, the legacy continues through John Blake. No other Batman comic truly shows (or eludes) to someone else taking up the mantle of the bat. Dick Grayson did, but eventually Bruce Wayne comes back, and they both go back to their original aliases. We also see Terry McGuiness, Damian Wayne, and that guy from Year 100. The only thing is, in all three of those timelines, we never see Bruce Wayne completely play out his life as the Dark Knight. In this series, we see everything, from the beginning to the end (and that 8 year hiatus between TDK and TDKR doesn't really count). It's a truly complete story. The comics can never bring Bruce Wayne's story to an absolute close, nor have they ever really tried. If they did, they would lose soooo many readers. Oh, and the films take most of the greatest Batman storylines and turns them into 3 fantastic movies. So, hell yeah, this is the definite Batman story. To be honest, I like this trilogy better than the comics.

Batman is "The World's Greatest Detective". Nolan's Batman is no detective. Not in the slightest.

I never felt like I was watching a Batman movie, but more like I was watching a crime drama. A fun crime drama nonetheless.

@Lone_Wolf_and_Cub: I feel it too. There was something missing, I wanted to see more of a super hero. I don't think Batman is a burden for bruce Wayne anymore, once he realized all the real good he could do, Batman turned into a honarable duty, this trilogy is pretty good, and that's it! it had to have a beginning and an end, that's way it was good because the circle was completed and closed but Batman/Bruce Wayne, as an comic icon and a legend, has lived for such a long time and it will keep on living on and on.

I think it's the definitive Batman story in a movie medium. Comic writers will always be able to write a different kind of story, so its slightly unfair to compare comics to TV or movies. One must also remember that Nolan's Batman and Bob Kane's Batman fight for very different reasons. Nolan's Batman really ends up fighting for love, while the regular Batman fights for vengeance.

The realism that Nolan portrayed was incredible as well which makes the movies that much better. The comics sometimes seem to forget that Batman is a mere human, but Nolan does not - and its the stories that portray Batman as a mere human that are the best. Stories like Year One, Dark Knight Returns, Long Halloween, and Knightfall.

The absolute definitive Batman story ever? Not a chance, at least not for comic book readers. Year One and DKR will always reign supreme regardless of personal opinion. The definitive Batman movie? Well its a near perfect spin on the character and I'd love to see someone try and do better

Definitive? no. One of the best ever? Absolutely.

As i have said time and time again. This is a great "elseworlds" title and that is about it. Also i agree with some comments about bale as batman. Bale never made the movies great, his supporting cast, however, did. Bale was a 7/10 batman, just pretty good. Nolan had a great vision and he had a story about the bat that HE wanted to tell even if it meant that continuity was out the window, and that is ok.

Great movies, loads of fun, can't wait for the reboot. I don't get mad at the idea of a reboot because it is inevitable and it's just another opportunity to see a new kind of Batman!

Definitely agreed. Nolan verse is very close. I could get my wife and friends into "READING" batman by handing them the DVDs of this movie... The impact is immense.

Nice article. A totally different angle to the trilogy. Especially about the inspiration of dark knight on ordinary people is one thing that, although I watch but did not really observe in that view point!

Cant wait till they release a cool blue ray trilogy pack with a special action figure! I am first in he line to buy it.

@Gambit1024 said:

@ThomasElliot: The auto-pilot thing isn't my issue. I accept that Bruce fixed the patch. My issue is that the bomb had a blast radius of 6 miles. Auto-pilot or not, Batman would have been dead if he was in the plane (which he was). Yes, I know "movie magic" and all that, but honestly? I just think that Bruce's death is a much better ending than him just up and leaving Gotham, so I'm just gonna believe that that's what happened. Plus, if Alfred was having a "senior moment," I think that just makes the ending all that much classier. The fact that Catwoman is irrelevant to me. Helps me sleep better at night.

Who is to say that the auto-pilot

Erik, this is fantastically written. You hit the nail on the head when you focused on the underlying themes of Nolan's Batman.
 
Also, the soundtrack to the Dark Knight Rises is incredible!

I'm not sure why people never mention that there are several example of Batman as a detective. When Bruce first gets back in BB he is undercover downtown watching Rachel and the trial. Then he is seen doing research on Gordon and the police. and later as batman he is listening in to the conversation at Arkham. Then in TDK he does the forensics to recover the print on the bullet and later he crosses the line by using the wiretapping radar. These are all detective like activities.

It's not the definitive Batman, but it's a story that's directly up there with the greats.

No.

This is the definitive Batman story for all the people who don't read Batman comics. It's sad that it is because Nolan's Batman is nowhere near what us comic book readers know as Batman. I enjoyed the movies, but lets face it this was Nolan's take on the character and really shouldn't be taken as the man we know from the comics..