Originally Posted by Anita18
The big bad scheme in TDKR would not have happened if not for Bruce's actions in BB. Not that anyone knows that - all they know is that Batman flew an atom bomb out of the city.
Which is heroic, yes, but perhaps the whole thing could have been prevented.
The very premise of TDK asks if Batman's existence is harmful to society. That's why it was elevated from mere "comic book movie," because it asked such questions, even though we still had fun watching explosions.
Bruce grooming a successor makes sense with the "moving on" arc, which is much stronger than the "Batman is bad for society" idea throughout the trilogy. But it's something that can't be ignored.
Plus, there's no telling what Blake will do with the tools he's been given. It seems like he wouldn't bend the law as much as Bruce, at least. The Joker getting all his power in TDK resulted directly
from Batman breaking international laws and spiriting Lau back from Hong Kong back to Gotham. Will Blake do stuff like that? Hopefully not. He probably doesn't have the resources, anyway.
The Dark Knight certainly painted the actions of Bruce as having severe consequences, and at the end it was the citizens of Gotham, good and bad, that stood up to the Joker's game, not Batman himself, but those same citizens are painted as being utterly useless in Dark Knight Rises, merely cowering at whatever Bane threw at them, not standing up for them. Which is where Blake and his arc came in and the idea that Gotham always needs a hero who operates extra martially.
"If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination." - Roger Ebert on Revenge of the Fallen.