You can't put Batman mythology into a 3-Film 'Trilogy'...

[Dagenspear]

He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge

I didn't see the bridge in the background.

[The Dark Knight]

I'll say this:

I like the sequence where Batman connects the bomb, kisses Catwoman and effectively reveals his identity to Gordon. Probably one of the better moments in the franchise. However I didn't like the rest of Nolan's choices after that.

Arkham Knight's ending blows this out of the water for me in many aspects, but I won't explore any of those plot points yet out of courtesy.

[The Laughing Fish]

He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge

I didn't see the bridge in the background.

Don't forget that Fox found out that Bruce fixed the Bat's auto-pilot. That alone tells us that he survived, otherwise why bother telling the audience if he didn't make it? Never mind the fact that Alfred saw Bruce and Selina at that restaurant.

[Dagenspear]

He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge

I didn't see the bridge in the background.

Don't forget that Fox found out that Bruce fixed the Bat's auto-pilot. That alone tells us that he survived, otherwise why bother telling the audience if he didn't make it? Never mind the fact that Alfred saw Bruce and Selina at that restaurant.

I agree. He survived.

[thecolorsblend]

I'll say this:

I like the sequence where Batman connects the bomb, kisses Catwoman and effectively reveals his identity to Gordon. Probably one of the better moments in the franchise. However I didn't like the rest of Nolan's choices after that.

What makes that bit play for me is (A) the honesty Batman has in revealing his identity to Gordon and (B) I don't question his sincerity in that scene. I mean, on the rewatch you know Batman knew he was going to fake his death. But at the same time, that doesn't change much of anything for me in the scene inasmuch as he would have sacrificed himself to save the city. The previous movies set that up rather nicely (and without a bunch of didactic exposition, which I appreciate) but arguably more than the BB and TDK, TDKRises shows that even though Gotham has nothing to offer Bruce, he still loves the city and would do anything (anything at all) to protect it. I think he'd view flying a nuclear freaking bomb out to sea so his city could live in exchange for his own life as a fair trade. He'd look for a way to save himself... but he'd sacrifice himself if he had to. There are some big emotional moments in that trilogy that Nolan flatout didn't earn. But you're totally right, he earned that big moment.

[The Dark Knight]

The sequence preceding the moment in question is problematic for the Nolan crowd, (sending a missile barrage at Talia's truck) because it once again proves there are situations in which Batman must take lethal action to protect his city, ala B89. And Talia's death scene is just awful. But yes, that little section where Batman speaks to Gordon and flies off? Gold.

[Dagenspear]

The sequence preceding the moment in question is problematic for the Nolan crowd, (sending a missile barrage at Talia's truck) because it once again proves there are situations in which Batman must take lethal action to protect his city, ala B89. And Talia's death scene is just awful. But yes, that little section where Batman speaks to Gordon and flies off? Gold.

Why is it problematic? The guy didn't get killed on purpose. Batman wasn't trying to kill him.

[The Dark Knight]

He apparently wasn't trying to kill any people during the BB League of Shadows temple scene. He wanted to spare one life, but his actions resulted in the deaths of many. He didn't want to kill Harvey Dent in TDK, yet he did. He wanted to stop Talia's truck, yet his actions resulted in the death of her and the driver.

Yes, there is such a thing as collateral damage. However, again, it all just proves there are times when killing is simply unavoidable. The fact Bale's Batman is so big on 'no guns, no killing' just makes it all seem ridiculous and hypercritical.

Keaton's Batman has intent to kill and does.
Bale's Batman has intent to save and ends up killing anyway.

I wonder which one appears more incompetent?

[Dagenspear]

He apparently wasn't trying to kill any people during the BB League of Shadows temple scene. He wanted to spare one life, but his actions resulted in the deaths of many. He didn't want to kill Harvey Dent in TDK, yet he did. He wanted to stop Talia's truck, yet his actions resulted in the death of her and the driver.

Yes, there is such a thing as collateral damage. However, again, it all just proves there are times when killing is simply unavoidable. The fact Bale's Batman is so big on 'no guns, no killing' just makes it all seem ridiculous and hypercritical.

Keaton's Batman has intent to kill and does.
Bale's Batman has intent to save and ends up killing anyway.

I wonder which one appears more incompetent?

Whichever person isn't trying to be a murderer.

[The Dark Knight]

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.