So I came back to talk a bit about the interview in regards to the ending. I'm disappointed Gotham's gonna need superhero forever to survive in Nolan's world, especially considering this was a trilogy that glowed with so many great idealistic characters that were inspired by Batman's heroism but weren't costumed heroes themselves. The way I saw Batman was a response to a very drastic problem, and because of the toll it took on him mentally and physically Bruce wouldn't wish it for anyone. So the objective, of course, would to be to do enough good so that normal citizens would stand up for the city and no one has to do what Bruce did again for as long as possible.
It was a good thing to at the very least strip Bruce of the cowl, I applaud Nolan for having the balls to do that as in the world he created one man surerly couldn't assume that role forever, but things like the symbol becoming a martyr in the form of the statue at the end seem pretty pointless in retrospect if Batman's coming straight back afterwards. If they had to show Levitt discovering the cave, maybe they should have skipped in time or something to show that whole sacrifice wasn't in vain and implying it took a while before Blake decided he'd suit up? That would at least suggest when Bruce dropped the cowl it was when he did all that could be done for an era.
I'm left kind of sour still because I remember the dialogue indicating that the end of the Bruce's mission would lead to something finite, "the day Gotham doesn't need a Batman", not "the day Gotham doesn't need me" and the scene on the plane being "Gotham taking back their city", not some posterboy for Gothamites (who didn't seem to even be present in the movie) stealing Bruce's mantle and continuing his work.
To play devil's advocate the idea of the symbol being eternal and passed down is an interesting concept in and of itself, I've proposed it in the past before prematurerly when speculating on TDKR because it was definitely an idea that was relevant, and kind of similar to what I suspect the take on the LOS Leader is in that universe, and I agree with those defending Blake about how "the training is nothing, the will is everything" as that was a central theme both from Ra's in BB and TDKR when it came to making the climb in the pit. But it's still not that simple. Just because Blake is theoretically capable doesn't mean he should have the audacity to copy what Bruce did.
In short, I guess I kind of agree that "a hero can be anyone", and even "anyone can be Batman" should they be determined enough and follow a similar path of self-discovery that Bruce did, but what I don't agree with is the idea that anyone else should be Batman. Personifying that symbol has shown in it's wake good influence as well as bad (the Joker), and not only that it's proven to be self-destructive for Bruce as can be seen at the beginning of tdkr and the whole long road he needed to take to find happiness. Now that people of Gotham are aware of Batman's existence, his sacrifice snd what he stood for, I truly feel that in and of itself should be enough to keep the city on it's toes. Now that the actions of Gotham's saviour is fresh in people's minds, leave the symbol elemental after Bruce steps away, illuminating in the hearts of Gothamites willing to do good per his sacrifice in a sensible fashion, not needlessly having another Batman continue the war on crime and rendering the sacrifice null by literally parodying off-screen the episodic adventures Nolan feared for a fourth movie onward. I don't see how that demonstrates Gotham being shaken out of apathy or fending for itself at all, it just says the city will have a citizen every now and again willing to take the law into their own hands. What I hoped for the ending was to see the influence of the dramatic example Bruce Wayne set, not for those same dramatics to go on for an everlasting period.
Thank you Nolan for a good trilogy, the end just feels inconsequential for me now that it's basically confirmed Blake became Batman. The part of me who loves Bruce Wayne and wanted him to find happiness is satisfied, but the other part that loves the Gotham that Nolan has created as well as Bruce's journey isn't too content knowing it only lead to finding out that Gotham needs to be babysitted by a masked crusader until the end of time. For me, that made his mission feel kind of futile. It's like the whole "Gotham needs a hero with a face" theme was forgotten.
t:
One misfire doesn't mean the concept as a whole wasn't ideal, Gordon was as much a hero with a face as Harvey was and Gordon was never susceptible to corruption. Harvey just happened to be "the best of them" and most promising at the time before Joker broke him psychologically. That could have happened to anyone, even a man wearing a mask, as was demonstrated when the Joker was able to identify that Batman cared for Rachel and did his best to corrupt him from there unsuccessfully, not because of his hidden identity but because of Bruce's good conscious. My post is suggesting that there should be more good people in general, not Harvey Dents, and Batman should have set the example for them.
