I think you're all wrong and Nolan is wrong. He's severely limiting the scope of the trilogy and his options in the 3rdfilm by categorically denying the inclusion of Robin. Especially because TDK already deals with "Robin" in a very big way.
We know Batman has started something he cannot end; a legion of freaks will rise up to meet his challenge. Being a smart and determined man Bruce would naturally realise that his next phase in the mission should be RECRUITMENT. It's an ideological battle now. The 3rd film should be about moving beyond *one* man and creating a legacy that will serve gotham for decades to come. As the film opens Bruce has been activily scouting for allies...and in a stroke of cruel fate, a circus boy in the 'Wayne Special Scolarship Program" loses his parents at a tender age. This is the kind of tragedy that could turn a boy into another Two-Face or Joker. Furthermore, this orphan is violent, trained and naturally gifted; the fates have aligned! He'll be the first 'test' of Batmans next phase. The catch? He's also a friggin carny.
Another challenge is represented by Catwoman; will she be another dillemma for Batman or is she in fact a blessing in disguise? End the film with Dick Grayson in his shiney new costume standing beside Batman and joined by Catwoman and Jim Gordon, as they survey a city none of them would have recognised only a few years before.
The batman-vigilantes in TDK set the stage perfectly for this theme for in movie three. Basically, the theme is 'the future'.
While I think that you're right about Batman not being the only one who can do this, I strongly oppose the idea of bringing Robin into this franchise. Strongly. And I don't think Nolan's wrong here, but you. You seem to miss much of the points that he has established in his two-previous films.
It's a bit simplistic to think that to fight a multiplying population of freaks you need a multiplying population of vigilantes. That's wrong. In BB, Bruce didn't create Batman to be a guy that kicks criminal a**es. He wanted to became a symbol, a symbol of renewal for the people of his city. He tried to follow the steps of his parents, because the Waynes were philantropists who inspired people to help the city beyond their own personal interests... but Bruce thought that being a responsable, generous and unpstanding philantropist is not enough to keep crime on check. He didin't become the symbol his parents were... no, he was to bent on revenge to get that.
Now, in TDK, we got the reason of why Robin would destroy such a symbol... the batman copy-cats. They do not understand what his symbol means and they don't have his extensive physical and psychological training. They didn't have Ducard. Bruce may have trained for years. He won't have that time to adoctrinate Robin on that time ina movie, and Robin has no time to get to the point where Batman is... and the last thing Batman needs is to add another obstacle to hs crusade... to be responsible for Robin and his mistakes and his inssufficiencies.
To be a positive symbol, Batman can't be a catalyst for a legion of vigilantes under his command. Maybe in Miller's DKR, but not in Nolan's world. In Nolan's wolrd that would be fascism. He is there to inspire the people of Gotham to resist the temptations of corruption and to cooperate with each other... to be good. But Batman cannot be this... he is whatever Gotham needs him to be, but not a symbol of good and hope... at least, not a pure one. Not the one that HARVEY DENT was. ANd he need to complete himself as an inspiration. He needs to be more like Harvey. He nees to be trusted. And he may not be able to do that.
Enter the Redemption theme... enter a catalyst for Batman to comprehend this... enter Catwoman. My idea of Catwoman is of someone who is trying to be a symbol too... but where Batman sees the vast criminal network as the main problem, she sees POVERTY and MISERY as the main problem. She has seen her loved ones turn into criminals to escape misery, and she has seen very rich people treated like they deserved it. So, Catwoman steals from rich people... and Selina Kyle donates part of the money in the numerous charities she's involved in.
That's the symbol that neither Batman nor Bruce has become. The symbol of a philantropist... the symbol of a giver, an inspiration of good, and not of "fighting against evil". Selina sees this, but she's doing the wrong things for the right reasons. She's still a thief, a criminal... she's a complex character. And another poster came with this idea: when she goes to prison, she's afraid that her charities will dissapear... but then, someone she directly inspired, takes her place... Bruce Wayne.
The headlines would be: "The New Bruce Wayne? A philantropist?" and that the evolution as a character that Bruce is missing. He's a playboy, he's a cover-up, bu he's failing to be the example his parents were... and not because he lacks the means.
So I propose the next theme should be the exploration of three main topics:
1. What it takes to be an outcast and how to do the wrong things for the right reasons makes you a solitary, separated from society (Batman, Catwoman an maybe Freeze are all outcasts... they should know).
2. Economic contrasts... not good versus evil, but fortunate and unfortunate ones and how those who are on the top should be inspirations to HELP others, through philantropy and generosity... something quite similar to the theme of Wall·E (or the HOPE that Dent represented).
3. How redemption can be found by be willing to be an outcast and stil help others, not be straying away from your original principals but by respecting them nad honoring them... Bruce should find inspiration in the symbol that his parents were and in his public persona he should be a philantropist, like they were.
He should help Gotham by every means he has... to inspire All The People Of Gotham... not just a bunch of brave kids who are really good at fightin (but who will never be as precise and good as he is). He must fight temptation of growing resented against the society that despises him and yet he defends... like Catwoman, who saw so much misery that now DESPISES the SYSTEM, and never really believes in justice. He must be the symbol that his city needs. He must be bigger than just a vigilante trainer...
and Robin fits nowhere in that picture. Batman is a loner, and Robin was (and IS) a mistake in the comics. And I praise Nolan for not being 'wrong' on this subject.
See ya...
