Candyman's '92: Helen's Sacrifice - Was it Really Necessary?

Okay, so I've watched Candyman (the OG, obvi) like a zillion times. I'm still obsessed with Tony Todd's voice. And yeah, it's creepy as hell, but something's always bugged me about the ending. Helen, our skeptical grad student, becomes a total martyr, right? She pulls Candyman into the bonfire and saves the baby, but did she have to? I mean, I get the narrative – sacrifice, giving the legend a new (good) story, all that jazz. But was there really NO other way? Think about it: Candyman is powered by belief. Helen, at the beginning, is all about debunking the myth. Then she gets sucked in and becomes part of it. But what if she'd stuck to her guns? In the apartment fire, what if she focused on rescuing the baby without actively engaging with Candyman on his terms? Would he have lost power? Maybe I'm just being naive and wanting a happy ending that doesn't fit. I'm also not convinced he's purely evil, you know? Like, he's a product of his environment, a victim too. So, is Helen's self-sacrifice really the best way to break the cycle, or does it just perpetuate it by feeding into the Candyman legend? And another thing - it's kinda wild how everyone just accepts that Helen is a monster after she's framed for the murders. Like, no one even questions it deeply!! They just go along with the Candyman narrative. Maybe its supposed to be social commentary I'm not getting, or maybe it's just lazy writing? Anyway, I know it's a horror movie and it's all about the scares, but I just can't help overanalyzing this. What do you guys think? Was Helen's sacrifice truly heroic, or was she manipulated into becoming a permanent part of the Candyman mythos, like Candyman wanted all along?