ASM isn't anywhere near closer to the comics than the first movies. It has Gwen instead of Mary Jane, and his web-shooters are mechanical; otherwise, it's miles off. Read what I wrote up above for why, and there's more besides.

This. Him getting web shooting powers is much more believable than him making a gadget that shoots out webs.

.

Dark Knight Rises WAS a letdown, Tom Hardy aside.

It was too much of a departure from the characters.

This Nolanverse Batman started off strong, but the idea that Bruce would just stop being Batman for eight years is way out of left field, and then the whole "Peace, Im out" at the end when he fakes his own death and retires with the bitch that set him up to be killed was another WTF moment.

Batman fans know that Bruce IS Batman. He is that guy. The billionaire playboy is the façade. No way he just stops being that pissed off rage fuelled vigilante.

If Nolan didn't want to do CGI, he shouldn't have done Bane. No venom present whatsoever. The mask he wears is supposed to be a painkiller?

Odd that the "World's Greatest Detective" never once targeted that mask in their first fight. It should've been flashing like the vulnerable area of a boss in an arcade game.

In the books Batman broke Bane because he was utterly exhausted when they finally clashed. Bane released everyone and his brother from Arkham and after Bats wore himself down for weeks on end bringing them all back, then Bane attacked and wiped the floor with him.

In Nolan's film, Bats is apparently not smart enough to target the mask, and too old and washed up to fight him one on one. But hey, get thrown in a hole with a displaced vertebrae, get a nice crunches and pullups montage, and Bats is able to come back and own Bane in a beautiful homage to Rocky 3.

You know what bothered me about The Dark Knight Rises? That magic knee brace band thing that changes him from limping cripple to superhero? Billion dollar market completely ignored...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JU9Uwhjlog8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was always a fan of Spider-man having web shooters due to biological changes. I was never a fan of the "oh shit I just ran out of webbing mid-fight" plot device.

DKR just stretched my suspension of disbelief too far... Catwoman was completely unnecessary and unbelievable, the entire police force trapped underground, that goofy ass prison with everyone dressed in the same overly clean rags, Scarecrow running some silly, stupid court, Batman being nearly crippled but coming back in few short weeks, months?

It wasnt even about them not sticking with canon on Bane, just too much other unbelievable stuff... what made the other two so great was, atleast within the world Nolan created, everything was pretty believable... this one just took it all too far, it was a farce.

In retrospect, nothing you say I can really not agree with, except I didn't think Catwoman was an unnecessary character anymore than any other supporting role you find in tons of movies. That's just the part of movies. But, let's be real, the possibility of and fervored expectations simply meant TDK wasn't ever going to realistically be matched- let alone topped.

Not to discredit Nolan, but I think if you're setting out to do a trilogy, unless you have the entire story committed to script or from source material, it's just not going to hold up when you approach it by writing them individually and then shooting them. No different than the Matrix movies.

It's just really tough to switch gears from an episodic film and then create a story arc that's quality while making sure you have cohesion throughout, yet also having a film stand On its own.

Would it have changed things for the worse if the three Nolan Batman films were all one story spread out over 3 movies? i.e. The Hobbit. Would it have made it better?

I simply have to disagree about Selena Kyle, it was just too much... in this world, not only is there a badass richest man in the world who goes around doing nearly impossible things, but now theres a female criminal who's just as capable?... it was COMPLETELY unnecessary IMO, it added nothing and subtracted everything.

It was nothing more than a cheap attempt at garnering/appeasing more female viewers IMO, all it did was divert attention from the fact that Nolan apparently wasnt sure how to fill two and a half hours with what Bruce Wayne is doing, and even with her needless character he still cheats us of any real Batman action by belaboring the totally ridiculous prison sequence.

Nolan had a nearly limitless amount of source material to draw a better story from, I'll tell you exactly how this movie felt... Blade III... dry, stale and paint by numbers, NOTHING that was cool about the first two was included in the last one.

If Nolan has ever made a bad movie, THIS was it.

They made Peter Parker less nerdy. It was definately an "emo ish" type of makeover.

I think it stayed true to Nolan's vision of his character and his story arc. Does an artist always have to stick closely to his original source material? Shouldn't he be allowed some flexibility? Every medium is different.

THIS... they tried too hard to make him like Batman, instead of nerdy/snarky he just came off like a hipster dick, Spiderman isnt supposed to be "dark", thats where Raimi REALLY failed in #III (what an awful movie, a typical #3) that was never his thing no matter how hard the director/writers wanted it to be so.