Never really thought about Dark Knight trilogy timeline...

[Brazoo]

Don't the logistics of the batcave get glossed over in every version of Batman though?

[ctc]

>Something that keeps getting glossed over is the Batcave.

Here ya go:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18968_5-reasons-there-must-be-corpses-buried-under-batcave.html

Don C.

[kept back]

Something that keeps getting glossed over is the Batcave. At the end of The Dark Knight Wayne Manor is (presumably) still rubble or being rebuilt. It seems unlikely that he would have built the cave into what we saw in Dark Knight Rises and then not use it. I think he kept going for awhile as Batman, just with a lower profile than what we saw in BB and TDK.

[Megotu]

I think it was more of an assault on the organized crime structure rather than the nightly assault on street crime most of us associate with Batman. Once he had tied his parents death to the Mob (was it Falcone? I think it was Falcone in the first movie...) via Joe Chill, the Mob became his only focus. The first movie was the main kingpin. The second movie was the enforcers and lieutenants. The third movie was sweeping out the consoldation of the leftovers. The supervillains were just tools that the Mob tried to use which always got out of hand. Falcone tries to harness Scarecrow who was actually working for Ra's..Maroni tries to hire Joker as a hitman, not realizing that wasn't Joker's forte. The developer tries to use Bane, not realizing he had a completely different agenda.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Despite what Nolan said himself, I like to think there was more time in between Begins and DK. Joker showed up, left his card, and disappeared for a bit as he amassed some credentials, while Batman and Gordon worked on the mobs. Remember, Joker was OUTSIDE the mob, and Gotham's organized crime was VERY organized.

I do think they should have paid some lip service to Batman being active as an outlaw for a bit in DKR, instead of just disappearing at the end of DK. But I can nitpick things like this in lots of films. As originally intended, Superman II would have taken place immediately following the first film, so Superman would have given up his powers pretty quickly just to bed Lois.

Chris

[Brazoo]

Not really on topic, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who just keeps calling it "the third one".

I feel old for admitting this - because I CLEARLY remember getting frustrated and thinking my parents were old and out of touch if they mixed up sequel titles when I was a kid - but if I have to remember the actual title I always stumble and my brain goes through something like ---

"The Dark Knight Returns" was the comic, and "Batman Returns" was the Keaton series, and then there was "Superman Returns" so it's not "Returns" - but IN the plot he did go away and then returned - but it's not "Returns"...err...

[MIB41]

I think the premise was pretty grounded. If you took on crime at the level Wayne was, he would be incurring some significant injuries fairly quickly. And for all the money he had, it didn't change the fact that being Batman would not be a long career, which makes sense. He was making a significant dent in the crime network, but like most things there is a price to pay. I think it was a great series. Not for all comic fans who need the tights. But it more than obliterated previous efforts at the box office and became the most successful superhero franchise to date. So a new standard was set. The next Batman has a tough act to follow. I wouldn't want the job. Honestly only the Avengers stands to do better as a series. The first film was fantastic, so time will tell.

[jwyblejr]

Of course when they reboot it again,none of this will matter.

[boynightwing]

That third movie really messes things up doesn't it? I was "meh" on it at first. Then I liked it. Then I went back to "meh". Now...I don't much care for it at all.

[bobws]

Just another reason , not to be a fan of the Nolan films.

[enyawd72]

Was watching Batman Begins last night...got to the end where Gordon sends Batman off on the Joker's trail.
Got me to thinking...Nolan said that Dark Knight takes place six months after Batman Begins. Bruce is only Batman in Begins for a short time. The events of Dark Knight happen over what, a period of maybe a month or two, after which Batman disappears for eight years?

So his whole career as Batman lasted less than a year? That seems like a complete waste of all that training and preparation. Almost pointless really.
Makes me feel like instead of having him disappear after Dark Knight, it would have been better to just continue on with him battling crime and evading the law.