The Dark Knight Rises Is Nolan's Batman the DEFINITIVE Batman?

[Superwoman Prime]

I chose the second option. I like BB/TDK, but they're far from comic accurate, despite what fans want to boast.

 

[DieSmiling]

I said no, because while I think that the Nolan movies are the best Batman movies, and are very faithful in certain respects, there is no definitive Batman. There are elements of the original Batman that will always be memorable and iconic, and I'd like to think that future interpretations of Batman could be great in their own right as well. I don't care if they include Robin or not (although I'd like to see him in a movie again eventually) this to me is about the nature of the character, which is one that has developed through various interpretations.

 

[Timstuff]

I would dare say that Nolan's Batman is more faithful to the character than the comics themselves have been at times. Especially with the exclusion of Robin.

 

[Nepenthes]

I would dare say that Nolan's Batman is more faithful to the character than the comics themselves have been at times. Especially with the exclusion of Robin.

now that is simply not true. Saying you prefer Batman alone is fine, but saying it's more accurate is simply denial.

Real time: Batman invented 1939. Robin 1940
Comic time: Batman operates for one to two years alone, enter Dick Grayson; 18 months in between Grayson leaving and Jason Todd: one year between Jason Todd and Tim Drake. That's three-to-four years alone in roughly a ten year fictional history, less than half.

Batman is introduced to the world as Batman AND Robin in the 1940 serial, and likewise again to a new generation in the 1960's, which of course was huge. Another cartoon in the 70's, and then Robin is introduced within the first season of TAS and the second of Batman Strikes. This is what the mainstream public know about Batman. Ask them and they will tell you "the truth" that from the majority perspective, Batman & Robin go side by side. B89, Returns, and Nolans movies are only ones going against the grain. And why? Only because they're set in 'the early days', both within Batmans world AND within his introduction (or re-introduction) to the audience. Try doing more than three movies without Robin though and any director will realise what every Batman editor already knows.

Further, Batman has had no less than TEN different characters within his Bat-family, pretty good for a "grim" and reclusive loner no? Not too mention that arguably the grimmest Batman story ever told - Dark Knight Returns - still found reason to include a brand new Robin. Fact is, Batman IS a legacy character - but noooo, because they don't all wear the same costumes we have simpletons telling us the exact opposite; that somehow Batman doesn't care about his legacy, as if he somehow does NOT choose to use every available resource and ally in his mission, with the aim of executing his mission to the highest degree. A major aspect of Batman is himself recognising the fact that he cannot work alone, and most often, that he prefers not working alone. It's been explicitly shown in multiple stories, each major event actually - Knightfall, Contagion, NML, Fugitive, War Crimes - has circled this fact in some way. Are you saying those stories are 'less accurate' than TDK?

* The 10 bat-family are: Dick Grayson, Catwoman, Barbara Gordon, Huntress, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Jean Paul Valley, Steph Brown, Cassandra Cain, Damian Wayne; not too mention Terry Guinness and Carie Kelly