The Dark Knight Trilogy???

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Am I the only one slightly bothered by the collective title they call the three Nolan movies? Obviously it is a trilogy in story matters but I really dislike this idea of sealing themselves off in a bubble from not only the past Batman pictures but the forthcoming ones as well. How snooty can you get? lol

I remember when The Dark Knight was in pre-production they constantly referred to it on media sites as "Batman Begins 2" (an awful title in itself). But when Rises came along the rot had seemed to set in. Rises in it's early stages was called (*GASP*) "Batman 3"!!! Well it wasn't to me mates. Batman "3" has and always will be to me Val Kilmer's outing in the suit. Rises should have been Batman "7" if we're going by the Warners movie system and excluding tv and animation. If there was ever a sign of pathetically attempting to erase Batman movies-past then this was surely it.

I find it absolutely incredible the series began back in 1989 and despite a rest period (1997-2004, the "wilderness years" if you will) is still going strong today. That to me is far more epic than saying the series got rebooted in 2005 so there are two sets in existence (and soon to be a third with a certain Mr Affleck). I mean how boring and untruthful. Look at the long running Dr Who tv show and how proud it is of it's epic history.

I personally view ALL the Batman pictures as being part of the same series. Not in universe terms of course but when I screen them in sequence I often start with Keaton and move through to Bale, "James Bond" style. I never seperate the Nolan films from the rest and I am intrigued to ask if this is what other fans do or do not do.

[Azrael]

I personally view ALL the Batman pictures as being part of the same series. Not in universe terms of course but when I screen them in sequence I often start with Keaton and move through to Bale, "James Bond" style. I never seperate the Nolan films from the rest and I am intrigued to ask if this is what other fans do or do not do.

Never saw it any other way. Too bad this seems to be a minority view.

[The Dark Knight]

I include them all in the same broad church that is Batman, but break them up in terms of continuity.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've never had a problem with Nolan's films being labelled a trilogy. Those three movies constitute a narrative trilogy in the truest sense of the term. Things like the classic Indiana Jones trilogy are only trilogies insofar as there are three films in the series (I'm stating the obvious here, I know, but bear with me), whereas a narrative trilogy – such as the Back to the Future trilogy – is one ongoing story related across three parts.

In that sense, something like the classic Star Trek trilogy – or the 'Genesis' trilogy, as some fans call it – is also a true narrative trilogy. A storyline is set in motion in The Wrath of Khan that continues in The Search for Spock and is finally resolved in The Voyage Home. It's essentially one ongoing narrative conveyed in a classic three-act structure. Star Trek: The Motion Picture doesn't count as part of the trilogy, despite being the first entry in Paramount's theatrical Star Trek series, because the narrative is unrelated to those in the subsequent three films. Thus the Star Trek 'Genesis' trilogy consists of Star Treks II, III and IV, but not the first film.

The same logic applies to Nolan's Batman films. He drew a clear line of demarcation with Batman Begins to separate it from the previous Batman adaptations, and he drew a second line of demarcation with The Dark Knight Rises to ensure his series wasn't Schumachered by a lesser director. Considering the direction the franchise is heading in with Batman vs. Superman, I'd say it was a prudent move on Nolan's part.

I include them all in the same broad church that is Batman, but break them up in terms of continuity.

Same here. Otherwise you may as well consider Batman '89 Batman 2 because it followed the Adam West movie. Granted, the West movie wasn't produced by WB, but it remains DC Comics' first live action Batman film. Batman '89 was the second. Batman vs. Superman will be the ninth. It's far better to divide them into separate groups based on continuity.

[Azrael]

Same here. Otherwise you may as well consider Batman '89 Batman 2 because it followed the Adam West movie. Granted, the West movie wasn't produced by WB, but it remains DC Comics' first live action Batman film. Batman '89 was the second. Batman vs. Superman will be the ninth. It's far better to divide them into separate groups based on continuity.

Yes.. but the stylistic (or what word is appropriate) gap between 1966 and 1989 is vast compared to the gap between 1989 and 2005.

One could even make the case that Batman on Screen can be split into two distinct eras: pre-1989 (campy live action, low grade animated series) and post-1989 (serious tone in live action, sophisticated animated series).

[The Dark Knight]

BB, TDK and TDKR are absolutely a trilogy. They genuinely honour Batman, but I think it proves three films isn't enough to capture the character, beginning to end. BB is the best one but should be called Batman Begins a Very Short Career.

The wording 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' is somewhat annoying to me. The 'Dark Knight' moniker only came into being with the second film in Nolan's series, and once again with the last. It makes Batman Begins feel like the odd one out. Another tag would be better, something as simple as the Nolan trilogy.

[phantom stranger]

Only problem I have is that WB seems to think that one version of Batman supplants the previous version.

If the rights to Batman Forever were tied to a different studio (as is the case with the '66 film) we probably would've had a Director's Cut of Batman forever by now. And maybe even an extended cut of the Burton films.

But since those films are "in the past" WB has no interest in doing anything special with them.

[Travesty]

BB, TDK and TDKR are absolutely a trilogy. They genuinely honour Batman, but I think it proves three films isn't enough to capture the character, beginning to end. BB is the best one but should be called Batman Begins a Very Short Career.

The wording 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' is somewhat annoying to me. The 'Dark Knight' moniker only came into being with the second film in Nolan's series, and once again with the last. It makes Batman Begins feel like the odd one out. Another tag would be better, something as simple as the Nolan trilogy.

I agree with all of this.

It doesn't bother me, though. TDKT was its own thing, and I'm glad it'll be labeled that way, too. At least I know which Batman movies are my least favorite. Although, I do enjoy BB quite a bit.

[riddler]

BB, TDK and TDKR are absolutely a trilogy. They genuinely honour Batman, but I think it proves three films isn't enough to capture the character, beginning to end. BB is the best one but should be called Batman Begins a Very Short Career.

The wording 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' is somewhat annoying to me. The 'Dark Knight' moniker only came into being with the second film in Nolan's series, and once again with the last. It makes Batman Begins feel like the odd one out. Another tag would be better, something as simple as the Nolan trilogy.

Perhaps Nolan didn't spend so much of the third film focusing on characters other than Batman we could have learned more of his story.

Nolan should have planned his titles better. Nolanites proclaim he had this master plan from the beginning of a trilogy (which I don't buy for a second, I think we all know the joker would have been in the third film if Ledger lived). He should have either had the dark knight as part of the first title or labelled the sequels with batman in the title.


I disagree about the number; Batman Begins is not batman 5. It is a new continuity

[Slash Man]

I personally think it's more bothersome that the Burton/Schumacher series doesn't have a name. I mean, that's what it's unofficially known as "the Burton/Schumacher series." What a mouthful. It never really got a name because there was no other series to set it apart from at the time; it was THE Batman series. Then there's another Batman series, and things get a little muddled.

I don't really have any issues with the Dark Knight Trilogy name. I mean, it's clearly capitalizing on the runaway success of The Dark Knight, but at least there's a clear title that encapsulates all films.