One of the underlying themes in the dark knight is Gotham's reaction to the presence of Batman. Some individuals see him as a beacon of hope (gordon's son), others see him as an example to be emualted (the copycats), or as a dangerous vigilante, or someone who is just trying to help (MCU). The criminal populous sees him as an embodiment of Gotham's emboldened attempt to lift itself out of the mire of corruption which has for so long defined it. An escalation of "aggressive means" aimed towards an elevated end. Batman has changed the rules, in fact the entire game, and the mob see fit to respond in kind with a freak of their own. However as the movie goes on what you see is that Gotham as a whole is beginning to redefine the rules to include Batman. No longer is he an unknown factor, he is a known figure with rules (as Maroni so eloquently pointed out post-leg fracture "They're wise to your act, you got rules, the Joker, he's got no rules. Nobody's gonna cross him for you".

Which bring me to my titular point, at the end lies Harvey Dent dead (supposedly) and an interesting (though morbid)opportunity presents itself...kind of a kill two birds scenario. Yes it's quite noble and such to sacrifice your in order to "keep hope alive" but also what you have is the added bonus of removing two problems from the movie: the copycats, and the "rules".

His image as a symbol of hope for Gotham is now tarnished, couple that with the fact the police at the "behest" of the commissioner is now hunting him and now you have a situation where it's highly unpopular if not downright dangerous to be gallivanting around in homemade batman costumes.

Copycat problem fixed: check

Now that he's suspected of killing a mob boss(Maroni) and a crooked cop and assaulting another (ramirez) all of a sudden the comfort criminals had with any familiarity as to the batman's rule set is now gone. Once again when it comes to the bat you don't know what the hell to make of him.

Criminals fear the bat again: check

Let me say that I do think that he did it for the right reasons, but I also believe that he was aware of the various scenarios involved and what they would mean for all involved. At the end of the movie he gets to a point where he is now the character from the comics, two steps ahead of everyone around him and a 1/2 mile away from giving a damn what they think of him.. He is no longer looking to be a symbol of hope now that he sees that gotham's soul is alive and well. All he's concerned about now is the mission. In fact considering the consequences of being liked I think he now sees it's best if he feared unilaterally for the safety of everyone involved. He's evolved from who he was in Begins, now he is a dark knight, someone with all the values and chivalry of a knight without any of the need for glory and adulation

...Man that was way longer than I thought, but it's my twisted two cents (or more like $2.50). I swear this is my last Dark knight topic...at least until I get around to why Parris is wrong about the riddler for the next movie.

I don't see these conclusions as twisted in any way. I think Batman would have recognized the side benefits of bearing the blame for Two-Face's criminal acts. This is why I have argued elsewhere that a good plotline for the next movie would be to see these points turned on Batman.

Just as he did not correctly understand how the mob would react to his actions, leading to the events of The Dark Knight, the next movie would show the unintended consequences of accepting the blame for Two-Face's actions.

So while the poor copycats go away, a "Death Wish" style vigilante arises who has no qualms about killing those whom he thinks have escaped justice. The deaths might even be blamed on Batman, with an increasingly cautious Commissioner Gordon wondering if he can trust the Batman anymore. Dealing with this vigilante would be frustrating for Batman as the vigilante would believe Batman has no moral high ground. Thinking that Batman killed Maroni and the others will mean the vigilante will not listen to Batman's attempts to convince him/her that their methods are wrong.

If these movies indeed are intended to explore the early days of Batman and what makes him what he would become, this would fit. The end result is the dawning realization that he has opened the box and things will never be the same again (this would be a great conversation for him to have had with Joker . . . ). The movie would also feature another "super" villain, be it Riddler, Catwoman, et. al. (in some ways, I think the crime-boss Penguin would work well). Batman would see that the world around him is changing, and, perhaps at or near the end in a conversation with Alfred, it will come up that the only way to deal with this is to work, maybe even train, those who will also don cape and mask to fight crime.

In other words, I don't want to see Robin. I don't even think I want a mention of the Graysons. But I would like to see something that indicates we are moving toward the future where Robin will be present. Comic movies fail, at least in part, because they try to cram years of development into a two-hour movie. The nature of the medium means the development cannot be slow, but I think what Nolan has done is slowed the character development from previous movies. It would be nice to see this slower development continue, so that Robin doesn't show up until a sixth or seventh movie when Batman has been fully developed.

But I'm not kidding myself. I know how unlikely that is.

Well, if Chris Nolan stays true to his word, we won't be seeing Robin in the next movie. The way I see it, Chris Nolan's movies are like Batman: Year One. NO ROBIN.