I just wrote this in the Batman forum. I explain why I think TDKR contradicts a lot of stuff from BB and TDK and why I don't think it works as a Batman film.
Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Well, let's see...1) Throughout TDK, Bruce was trying to look for a replacement for Batman. He found one in Harvey. Even went as far as to support his campaign in order to get Harvey to replace him. He wanted to find a replacement for Batman in order to be able to quit and to live a normal life with Rachel. Then the Joker comes in, corrupts Harvey, and brings him down to his level. He also tries corrupting Batman but fails at it. What Bruce learns from this is that there is no replacement for him. Despite how good a man can be, he can easily be corrupted by a higher class of criminals (a.k.a. supervillains) including Harvey. That is the reason why Harvey was corrupted and Batman wasn't. The reason Joker failed to corrupt Batman is because Bruce is "more than just a man" (going back to BB). With Harvey's fall, Bruce realized that he HAS to be Batman forever (no pun intended) and that there is no escape from this responsibility. Batman is the only force out there that can deal with types of criminals like the Joker and the life he wanted to have by quitting as Batman and having a family with his loved one (Rachel) was just an illusion. It's one of the most brilliant character arcs ever done with Batman IMO. TDKR was supposed to deal with those things. We should have seen a Bruce without illusions who is forced to cope with the reality that he has to be Batman forever and that there's no escape from that. But what does Nolan say? "F*ck that! Let's pretend like all that character development in TDK never happened! We'll just have him quit right after that night for no good reason whatsoever!" So him quitting pretty much destroyed the whole POINT of TDK. Gordon also says at the end of TDK "We must hunt him. Because he can take it." Well apparently, he can't take it since he quit right after that night and then shut himself in his home for 8 years. Up until the ending, TDKR dealt with Bruce having to realize that Batman is who he truly is and who he has to be forever despite him already realizing that at the end of TDK. And by the end of TDKR, he even quits being Batman and passes on the mantle to a rookie cop he barely knows that doesn't even have 1/8 of the skills required to be Batman. All this completely undercuts TDK and makes it not needed.
2) The ending (as well as some of the dialogue when Bruce is talking to Blake) contradicts everything from Batman Begins including the symbol aspect. In BB, Bruce Wayne wanted Batman to be a symbol in the sense that he will inspire people to stand up against corruption in a city that had more or less given up. He wanted to inspire hope. That's it. In TDK, we see how far certain individuals have gone and have taken what Batman said too literally. People were dressing up like Batman and had gotten themselves in to loads of trouble. Batman become pissed at those impostors because they were hurting themselves and what they were doing was NOT what the message he inspired. He wanted to inspire hope. Not for people to run around in masks and fight crime just because he could. He realized after the death of Harvey Dent that no one would be able to fully take his place. So long as a person knows how to get to you, you are weak. Look at Harvey. All of that is torn apart with TDKR. Now, Bruce believes than ANYONE can be Batman as long as they have a mask and good intentions. REALLY? Why in the world was he getting mad at the impostors from the 2nd movie? They had good intentions after all. To stop crime. We went from inspiring hope in a city filled with corruption to "YOU CAN BE BATMAN TOO IF YOU ARE GOOD!" Great way to kill the message.
And now I'm going to address some of the stuff I think you'll bring up to defend this movie since I heard other people bring them up:
1) "Batman wasn't needed during the 8 year gap because the Dent Act cleaned up the streets." Wrong. First, an act can't realistically just clean up the streets. There are always ways around acts like these. They're about as effective as a bill that illegalizes prostitution and the marijuana industry - meaning they're not too effective since people still have easy access to both those things without getting caught. Second, the act doesn't put an end to all crime. Just to organized crime, which means there are still TONS of criminals out there to be caught. Unorganized crime can sometimes be even more chaotic than organized crime because there is no one to hold Gotham's criminals by a "leash" and tell them where and when to act. They would need Batman more than ever if organized crime falls. Third, TDKR states Bruce quit being Batman right after he got home that night Harvey died. The act probably wasn't passed until much later so Batman was STILL needed for a while. And finally, Bruce became Batman so that he can prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. As long as there are SOME criminals left in Gotham, even if they've been reduced to a low number, he wouldn't give up the fight until Gotham is FULLY safe. And like I said before, Gotham being fully safe is unrealistically possible. Even NYC and Detroit, despite it being a lot safer than in the 80's, still has some pretty high crime rates.2)"Bruce's spirit was broken at the end of TDK because he lost Rachel and the whole city was after him." Wrong again. Rachel's death would do the exact opposite of making him quit - it would make him keep going. Rachel was one of the obstacles that prevented him from fully accepting that there is no escape from Batman (in his mind). Rachel's death simply removed that obstacle and made him accept that reality. And the whole point of TDK is that Batman can HANDLE anything you throw at him, including being chased by the whole city and fighting the likes of Joker. Saying his spirit was broken because the city hates him completely contradicts that.
3) "Bruce passes on the legacy of Batman at the end to someone that he trusts and knows can carry it." The problem with that is that he barely even knows Blake and Blake is just a rookie cop. Keep in mind that rookie cops don't even have 1/4 of the skills required to be a professional cop and a professional cop doesn't even have 1/4 of the skills required to be Batman. Which means Blake doesn't even have 1/8 of the skills required to be Batman. I don't buy for a second that Bruce would pass on the legacy of Batman for at least a few more years and even if he did, I don't buy for a second that he would pass it on to a guy he barely knows with very little experience and even IF he did, I don't buy he wouldn't stay behind and train him.