Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
After all the debating of this movie, I've still yet to hear any Blake/legacy haters respond to "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead?".
I'm just genuinely curious as to what the other side of that coin might be.
Nothing. Just like what happens after TDKR with Blake, absolutely nothing.
Remember, a "third one" wasn't always a sure thing (unless Nolan is contradicting himself and bluffing). So what happens after The Dark Knight when Batman drives off into the night? Nothing. It could have literally gone anywhere
just like any scenario we could conjure up about anything. Little 2008 Lobster had no idea where TDKR could of been, so it's a moot point, just like the question above. The possibilities are endless because we don't know of the potential for something that doesn't exist.
It's to easy to play the, "it's just a story/film card", because as a fan of the films and the genre, we are that interested and invested. But in this case, it doesn't matter "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead" because TDKR could have played the card that Gotham was hopeless, or that the city itself actually stood up for themselves without the need of a Batman legacy or a physical person out there, or, or, or. And those possibilities may or may not have been more gratifying or "better" than what we actually got. So are the possibilities for after the events of the actual film, therefor it's a pointless discussion.
Unless you seriously think that there wasn't a better "third Nolan Batman film" to be made without Blake or any of the other qualities that TDKR has that are always being criticized . . .