Congratulations Christopher Nolan. You just delivered the best comic-book film ever. And creeping hell, it happens to be one of the all-time great sequels too. And did I mention it just shattered box-office records like a sledgehammer on a potato chip? What are you doing next…after going to Disney World of course? Oh yes, you might just attempt to break the dreaded comic-book film trilogy curse. Good luck mate, succeeding with that will make your accomplishments on The Dark Knight seem down-right pathetic.

After witnessing the cholesterol reducing* genius of The Dark Knight this weekend, a weird thought struck me. Do we need a third entry in Nolan's Batman trilogy? Don't get me wrong, we all want to see one. But should Nolan (who's technically not signed on for a third film, but I'd be shocked if he passed) risk soiling all he has rebuilt from the ashes of Joel Schumacher's napalm raid with another foray into bat country? Can we not just leave Batman Begins and The Dark Knight as one of the great one-two punches in cinematic history? Of course not, The Dark Knight was too damn good and made too much cash not to green-light The Caped Crusader.**

I don't think I need to remind you that a fully satisfying third film in a comic-book trilogy currently exists in the same realm of the Tooth Fairy and a talented Paul W.S. Anderson's. Superman III. Sucks. Batman Forever. Three words: Tommy Lee Jones. Blade: Trinity. I don't like vampires in my iPod commercials. X-Men: The Last Stand. Seriously, was that fucking Prince with the sonic hand-clap superpower? In my opinion the closest film to make a dent in a the curse is Spider-Man 3 - deeply flawed and lazy, but full of great action. Yet, not many are willing to even give it that much credit. After all, it's hip to hate on Spidey these days. Only when a third installment of a comic-book franchise gains an overwhelming consensus that it's worth a damn will I admit the curse is broken.

It's no coincidence that the suckitude of comic-bock film number three is inversely proportional to the ass-kickery of movie number two. With no origin story and a bigger budget, the first sequel allows the filmmakers to essentially blow their loads in both action and character exploration. Hell, Nolan admitted as much during an interview RopeofSilicon ran last week: "We certainly didn't want to hamper ourselves by saving anything for future films." And it's pretty hard to disagree with that statement considering how epic The Dark Knight is.

Nolan and company played it smart by waiting to break out the franchise's best villain until the second film - something most comic-book films don't do. Yet, part of me almost wishes they'd save The Joker for the third film. After the emotional meat grinder The Joker throws Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent into, how can you top that? It'll be nearly impossible to raise the stakes that high again. And let's face it, we'll probably never see another Joker story in this franchise since no actor is stupid enough to jump in the gigantic clown shoes Heath Ledger left behind.

If a film is only as good as its villain, how can you beat Ledger's Joker? Like most people - SPOILER AHEAD - I thought The Dark Knight was setting up a Two-Face story for the next film - perhaps the only villain that could follow-up The Joker. Oh how we underestimated Nolan's ambition. Who knew he'd wrap the entire Two-Face arc into The Joker's story…and succeed wildly at it?

So now we don't have too many choices left. The Riddler is like a nerdier, less menacing version of The Joker. Mr. Freeze: great tragic villain, but too sci-fi for Nolan's world. And so is Killer Croc and Clayface for that matter. Catwoman would be interesting, yet Tim Burton covered the subtext of her relationship to Batman pretty well. Poison Ivy: nah. And Bane is pretty much a beefed up version of The Gimp from Pulp Fiction - although a leather daddy super villain would definitely be a first for a mainstream film. The Penguin, perhaps, but I'm only interested if they could guarantee Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the role. And then there's the Mad Hatter. Quite simply, fuck the Mad Hatter.

Perhaps the best path for the third film lies within Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns." It's a radical idea, but just maybe Nolan should jump 30 years in the future and do a loose adaptation of Miller's masterwork. Several of the ideas found in Nolan's films would dovetail seamlessly into Miller's story (Batman gangs, Batman's one rule, Batman as an outlaw). And yes, I just said no actor would be stupid enough to follow-up Ledger's work, but The Joker in "The Dark Knight Returns" is 30 years older and that opens up new avenues for exploration. So recast the role with an older actor, and maybe you'll hit some sparks. Who knows?

Yet, that'll never happen. Not unless fanboys rise from their mother's basements and stage a coup at Warner Bros. However, with all of that said about the odds being against the third film, I have complete and utter faith in Nolan (with the exception of his debut film, Following¸ the man has never made a movie that didn't end up on my top-ten list). If anyone can pull it off, he can. The Dark Knight alone should win anyone's trust. Although if confirmation comes that Robin will cartwheel into the next film, be afraid, very afraid because Nolan has lost his mind.

* Not scientifically proven…yet.

** The rumors begin here on the third film's title. I'd love The Dark Knight Returns, but it carries too much baggage between Frank Miller's hailed graphic novel of the same name and Batman Returns. Although, I'm back to that in a second.