Im not suggesting there will be anymore Batman stories by Nolan. The point I'm making, is that Nolan's Batman, more than any other incarnation, is far more about him being a permanent symbol Gotham can rally behind. There would be no reason for so many of the characters to mention it so many times in the trilogy if the symbol died. Batman's story is over as far as Nolan telling it. But the way he told it it should be obvious that he always meant it to continue beyond what he shows us, that there will always be a Batman. Creating a new hero is just ridiculous, and out of keeping with the tone of Nolan's films.
In what way are Bruce and Blake different? Blake admitted he was just as angry as Bruce. They are the same type of person, both dedicated to good at all costs, Bruce is only darker because he suffered as part of his vocation. JGL would go through the same thing is his childhood friend and lifelong love was killed.
This light and dark business is utterly ridiculous, frankly.
No dude your basic premise is wrong. The point of the trilogy isn't Batman. The story Nolan was trying to tell wasn't about Batman beating up criminals, saving the day, defeating Joker and Bane and the end. The point of the story is Bruce Wayne's journey to come to a resolution about his father's death and his father's legacy. Along the way Bruce tries to do this by becoming Batman, among trying other things.
Considering all 3 movies as one long story not only is it perfectly legitimate that there is a new hero, there's no other way the movie could have ended. There's only 2 ways that Bruce could have left Gotham. One, he dies. Two he finds a successor to take his place. The entire trilogy is perfectly bookended. Batman begins when Ras tries to create Batman to be his successor. Batman ends when a new Batman rises to succeed Bruce. All 3 movies are Bruce trying to get a resolution to this question... how can Gotham be saved? and your resolution in this movie can only be understood in context of the trilogy.
In the first movie Bruce thinks he needs to be a symbol for Gotham, to get the people of Gotham to RISE for themselves (much like Bane does in the 3rd movie, same mistaken methods, different ends). But all that does is create freaks in hockey masks shooting up the city who don't truly have the will to protect the city. They are vigilantes (which Ducard warns Bruce about) not protectors. In the 2nd movie Bruce realizes symbols are dangerous, and tries to find a successor to appeal to Gotham's best instincts: a White Knight instead of a Dark Knight. It works to a degree (for example the ferry scene) but ultimately it fails, because such idealism is impossible. Finally in the 3rd movie Bruce comes to a resolution. He must do everything he can in his time then hand off the reigns to another man with the will to act, then live his life as his father did and as his father would have wanted him to.
What drives this resolution is the fact that Thomas Wayne was no less a hero to Gotham than Bruce was, in his own way. He was the hero that Gotham needed at the time... with his philanthropy for a dying city much like Bruce was the violent hero the city needed during his time. In this movie the resolution is that Bruce becomes a true successor to his father's work beyond he could have as merely the Batman He realizes what his father knew. It's not Bruce's job to save Gotham by himself, or to give his life for the city. It's to be a link in the chain, much as his father was, of heroes that Gotham needs. Blake is the next link in that chain. In the trilogy Bruce goes from a small boy to an older, broken down man. There's been a lot of criticism that there's so little "Batman" in this Batman movie. That's by design. This **** isn't really about Batman. He's not as important a character as Bruce in act 3 of this 3 act drama.
Blake is different from Bruce and there are hints in the movie that he's a sort of combination of both Bruce and Dent. For example Blake's heavyhanded repeated dislike for "masks" as well as his leadership/stewardship over the kids and his action in the daylight, opposite of Bruce. When the action goes down where is Blake? Is he kicking ass and taking names like Batman and Catwoman? No he's protecting the kids in his own way. Again hints from Nolan that Blake will be a different type of protector for Gotham from Bruce. By leaving the ending ambiguous... is he Batman? Robin? Nightwing? or just Blake? Nolan hints that Blake will in fact be whatever hero that Gotham needs post-Batman.
How can some regular joe cop become Batman? That's easy and that's answered in the first movie. Training is nothing. Will is everything. Don't agree? That's fine I don't agree with hovercrafts on city streets either. But Nolan makes the rules and that answer is definitely consistent in
context of the logic of these movies.
The one good thing that the OP caught is the insinuation that the Bat signal will be USED AGAIN. I've talked to a lot of people that Bruce just left it to let Gordan know he's alive. No. He left it for Gordan to USE. We don't know who will show up when the light goes up (Batman, Blake or w/e) but a hero will appear.
