What is it about this Joker that is so photogenic? I want 6 foot wide version of that picture to hang on my wall.

Yeah, I was satisfied at the end of Dark Knight. There wasn't really anything that was left hanging. Gordon's speech just kind of wrapped everything up. We don't really know what happens after that, but we don't need to know.

It was sort of like the end of the first Matrix movie. I was satisfied with that ending. I thought it was a good movie, and the ending fit. The second and third movies were not so necessary. They were ok movies, but…meh.

Excuse me please, but aren't there also many movies which were the third part of a trilogy (at the time of their release) and were also the best part? Or, at least, were able to mess with their two predecessors?

Here are some examples of what I mean:

- Star Wars Episode III (The new SW trilogy)
- Indy 3
- Die Hard 3
- The Bourne Ultimatum
- The Lord of the Rings-The Return of the King

These movies are examples for better third films of trilogys, in my opinion.

personally I think the ending of the dark night was good, BUT it was not completely wrapped up since they just left the joker hanging there. I also think that since they made Batman the bad guy in the end that gives it the feeling that it isnt over yet. Personaly I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if they ended at the dark knight, that way there is no risk of mankeing a bad third movie, but I also dont think The Dark Knight completely wraps it up.

And Ben does have a point about some third trilogy movies being as good or better then there predecessors.

ben said:
Here are some examples of what I mean:

- Star Wars Episode III (The new SW trilogy)
- Indy 3
- Die Hard 3
- The Bourne Ultimatum
- The Lord of the Rings-The Return of the King

These movies are examples for better third films of trilogys, in my opinion.

Episode III and Bourne Ultimatum, definitely. Most people would still have the original Die Hard and Indy over the 3rd installments, and Lord of the Ring doesn't really count since it was filmed as one gigantic movie.

But that's me nit-picking. Name one comic-book movie Part 3 that is better than the predecessors. No, name one comic-book movie Part 3 that is ACTUALLY ANY GOOD (although I admit I sort of like Spider-man 3, but it is a massively flawed film). There is a curse on the Part 3 when it comes to comic-book films. If anyone could break it, it would be Nolan…but nonetheless, why risk smearing the greatest one-two punch in decades?

I agree with most of what you're saying, especially regarding the expectations after this one. But I don't agree with your conclusion. Just because it's going to be a monumental task to top TDK doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. Why the "give up" attitude? Surely I'm not the only one who has faith in Nolan & Co. to top or at least comes close with a third installment. Also, why does it have to be Nolan specifically? Obviously picking someone willy-nilly (*cough*Schumacher*cough*) isn't the right idea. But it's not inconceivable to find a filmmaker who will respect the tradition Nolan has set up in this movies but give it a fresh new take, which could top or at least rival TDK. Maybe the film industry should take a cue from the comic book industry in that regard. Switching up creative teams is not always a bad idea.

Make no mistakes, though, I do think Nolan can top this and I'm totally on board for another one. But at the very least, I HAVE to back up your sentiment: stop guessing what the next one will be!

dopiestghost said: Why the "give up" attitude?

Not a give up attitude. A satisfied attitude. A victorious attitude. An attitude that says I would rather see Nolan make a film that isn't about Batman because he already did that (twice) and they were great, but so was Memento and The Prestige.

I guess I am just tired of the sequel for sequel's sake and don't think The Dark Knight really needs any more than what we already have.

ben said:
- Star Wars Episode III (The new SW trilogy) [Seriously? This is like saying I would rather by punched in the knee rather than the face]
- Indy 3 [Agree, best of the bunch]
- Die Hard 3 [Agree, I liked it]
- The Bourne Ultimatum [I liked it, but I won't say it was necessary or did anything Supremacy didn't]
- The Lord of the Rings-The Return of the King [Doesn't count and it wasn't the best one anyway]

You make a case with Indy, and even though I liked Die Hard 3, I wouldn't really say any of those films (maybe Bourne) compare to the complex world created in Batman, at least in terms of forwarding the storyline. Bourne was a difficult task, but it is still a toss-up when compared to Supremacy and we didn't really gain much by having it outside of just having another Bourne movie. Bourne Ultimatum, I think, almost proves my point rather than yours.

The thing is, most people say like there's a curse on threequels (or even comic-book threequels!) and they should not make another Batman movie because… Because! It will not be good, because it never is. Really? I mean, ok, if even Godfather and Star Wars failed, who's Batman to escape from this so called 'curse', right? Guys, that's really childish. There's no curse. There's no fact that a third Batman would be inferior just because. Christopher Nolan is a WONDERFUL director. If he thinks he can do it, he can do it. Period. And I would go further, if he wants to cast another Joker (don't think he would, just an assumption), I would accept that. Yes, Heath Ledger was fantastic, but I think the real mastermind, the great 'scene stealer' from The Dark Knight was the man behind the cameras. Chris Nolan is one of the best directors out there nowaways. Whatever he wants to do with the third movie, I'll accept it. Even if the doesn't want to do it… I'll take that as well.

And sure, even Coppola 'undelivered', and he's also a genius. But google the backstage stories for Godfather III and you'll see that movie wasn't meant to be made (hence it took almost 20 years to be made). It's not the same thing!

In Christopher Nolan I trust.

dubost said: The thing is, most people say like there's a curse on threequels (or even comic-book threequels!) and they should not make another Batman movie because… Because! It will not be good, because it never is. Really? I mean, ok, if even Godfather and Star Wars failed, who's Batman to escape from this so called 'curse', right? Guys, that's really childish.

Childish? Just because? Did you read my article or are you just blindly commenting? I had specific points and a variety of reasons why I felt another film should not be made if I remember correctly.

Yeah, I'm the childish one who believes in curses. And Fears Them. Not Brevet

Essentially, the curse thing is just the long-about way of me saying, and agreeing with Brad, that the one-two punch of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight satisfies me as it is.

Sure, I'm confident in Nolan, with the exception of Following, every film he has made has been in my end of the year top 10. But, if he doesn't return then my confidence will plummet, unless they find another great director to fill-in.

GOD BLESS BRAD BREVET.
finally, someone is thinking reasonably. no TDK sequel=fine by me.

God bless Christopher Nolan…I want a freakin third!

There is going to be a Dark Knight sequel obviously. It's made too much money to not. I don't think that has to be a problem either. Personally I think this article argues a misguided point by someone who enjoyed TDK and because of series closers like Godfather 3 and ROTJ is worried a third film will represent a serious drop in quality. The Dark Knight will be hard to top but they don't have to make a better film. Only one film in a trilogy can be the best, it doesn't mean the others can't also be brilliant. The Bourne series has shown recently that if the right care and time is put into a franchise with the talent, you can maintain the quality. Assuming the Nolans come back on board there's no reason why a third Batman wouldn't be excellent. Alright, the Joker won't be back but the Joker wasn't in Begins and that was a great film.

The main character across the two films is Batman and at the end of the Dark Knight it seems pretty clear to me that his story isn't done. If anything his position at the end of TDK sets up a very interesting third act for the character and one that I'd like to see played out. Also your survey is too leading. I'd like to answer yes there should be a sequel but without the addition of 'only if they believe it will be better than TDK' because I'd be happy with a film that was as good.

I believe there should be a third movie. Not so I can see some new person play some new/old bad guy, but because the series isn’t finished. Despite the movies being called Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I think this series is really about GOTHAM CITY. Batman, Gordon, Dent, and Dawes are only interesting because the city they fight to protect is so corrupt, so fiendish, so cynical, so desperate, and so unworthy of saving. The series can only end in one way that will satisfy my appetite: regardless of whom the Batman must face or who portrays him/her/them, the true villain is GOTHAM itself. Batman must take on the city in some form, for it’s the city that created him, chases him, feeds his crime-fighting compulsion, and breeds freaks like Joker and Scarecrow. From BB to TDK, it is Gotham that attracts the freaks, not Batman, as Gordon seemed to indicate. Only when Batman faces the city in some form or fashion will we get the conclusion we deserve. It is for this reason I’m hoping for a title along the lines of SONS OF GOTHAM. (Not not too mention that following ‘a dark knight’, I’d like to see a ‘son-rise’. Ha!)

I like the way this batman ended i dont think they should continue with making another one if its just for the sake of makeing another one. You see there are some movies where you have to make a 3rd movie to make it all come together and so you understand everything about the movie ….. other movies ( spider-man3, indy4 ) are useless pieces are crap that serve no purpose at all to making a sequal…. honestly was there any purpose for indy4? or was it just to let Harrison Ford act again and let shia labeouf be even more famous? Thats just my opinion. Spider-man is just garbage i dont like it anymore , waste of money.

Nolan is a solid director and if he makes another one( batman movie) i will lose some respect for him. Hes not planning on making another one so thats a good sign that he knows the dark knight was the last of the batman movies.

In regards to trying to "one up" the previous movie, and for the studio to rake in more bucks – which is the ULTIMATE reason for sequels to happen, I would beg for NO SEQUEL!

In regards to watching another Nolan film (provided it was him that directed it, and the same care went into the next one), I'm all for another sequel.

However, to choose one ULTIMATE option… I prefer for no sequel to be made and let the continuation finish up via comics or books or my own imagination.

And, honestly, I can't think of a single franchise (sequel "intended" franchises) that worked – where any of the third films were better than the first or second film. I know I haven't seen everything and therefore am possibly lacking some great insight for some trilogies/franchises, but I definitely hate it when great things get ruined because of one movie.

Arguing against a sequel for any superhero movie totally negates the artform that the movies are drawn from: the comic book/graphic novel. The Dark Knight was a great movie, incredible. So what? There are other incredible Batman storylines out there, from Frank Miller and other excellent storytellers. Why should we not want another movie just because this movie was good? Other movies, such as Friday the the 13th part 839 seem ridiculous to me, because they are simply reinventions of the same movie over and over. This isn't the case with Batman. What everybody seems to have forgotten is that, as good as Heath Ledger's performance was, the Joker wasn't the lead character. I was fascinate with the fact that Batman's dual personality was even more splintered by the ending of the movie. His role of vigalante, denounced publicly but accepted privately by Gordon, etc., is ended. He is now a true enemy of the people. How is he going to continue helping Gotham within this new context, when he is no longer considered even an anti-hero, but a villain? What will this do to his already split personality, both parts of it? Will it make him more whole, more effective, or will even the Bruce Wayne persona begin to exhibit darker traits of a true outcast? These are the questions posed by the second movie. Everyone's always been so interested in the colorful villains in the comics, and for good reason. But remember, the title of the series of Batman. Not the Joker, not the Penguin, not the Catwoman. Batman. I want to see what happens to him. If the next movie takes on that responsibilty, then I say, "Bring it on!"

Bobthegrinch said: There is going to be a Dark Knight sequel obviously. It's made too much money to not. I don't think that has to be a problem either. Personally I think this article argues a misguided point by someone who enjoyed TDK and because of series closers like Godfather 3 and ROTJ is worried a third film will represent a serious drop in quality. The Dark Knight will be hard to top but they don't have to make a better film. Only one film in a trilogy can be the best, it doesn't mean the others can't also be brilliant. The Bourne series has shown recently that if the right care and time is put into a franchise with the talent, you can maintain the quality. Assuming the Nolans come back on board there's no reason why a third Batman wouldn't be excellent. Alright, the Joker won't be back but the Joker wasn't in Begins and that was a great film.

The main character across the two films is Batman and at the end of the Dark Knight it seems pretty clear to me that his story isn't done. If anything his position at the end of TDK sets up a very interesting third act for the character and one that I'd like to see played out. Also your survey is too leading. I'd like to answer yes there should be a sequel but without the addition of 'only if they believe it will be better than TDK' because I'd be happy with a film that was as good.

What he said.

Is it not possible Batman doesn't resurface in Gotham?

The Joker is caught and Two-Face is dead. Police in Gotham are re-energized and the city's villain is now their savior. I don't see why it can't end like that.

Just saying.

Bobthegrinch said: Also your survey is too leading. I'd like to answer yes there should be a sequel but without the addition of 'only if they believe it will be better than TDK' because I'd be happy with a film that was as good.

I assumed people in your category would vote "Definitely"

iv been enjoying everyones point if views but as one of the biggest fans of Nolan and the Batman films he has given us as well as a big fan of Batman. but i am not a fanboy i am more of the type that like to read about it all. but i wanted to say i hope they make a third one because i remember Nolan saying this while making Begins that he wants his Batman films to focus on batman more than who he is fihgting (somehting to which Nolan thought that the other 4 films did to much is making the movies all aobut the bad guys). so my point being that a third one isnt exactly a follow up really more of another chapter in Batmans saga. if you think about it not much from Begins other than scarcrow and tlaking once about Falcone (spelling?) there wasnt much that carried over besides those 2 and the growing trust between grodon and Batman and the new batcave. so what if the third one was about the cops hunting for Batman but also the city trying to move on from the joker as well as Dent and have the riddler of sorts leaving riddles everywhere but also asking the biggest riddle who is the Batman? or somehting like that, just another story in the Batman world. because im not sure if you can top The Dark Knight but as long a they are going to keep to the true and simply meaning of these movies which is "Batman" not joker twoface…. just Batman and they can put together a good story then who knows we just may get another amazing film. i hope my rant made sense like i said i dont do this much but I want a third because there is still so many stories left to be told. my choices……..Riddler……..Hush

I agree with several of the people here, especially in that the movie is more about Batman than who Batman fights, as well as it is about Gotham City itself — and HOW IT PROGRESSES. Is Batman going to ultimately help it or not?

I think that, as difficult as I'm sure TDK was to make, it would be easy to leave it where it ends, because no progress or end (not necessarily in part 3) to Batman could be in sight, and we could have Batman battling baddies for the next 80 years and point to the past and leave it at that, while dealing with more recycled storylines most of the time on the screen.

So, whether it be Nolan or not, it would be great to see some storytelling creativity in Hollywood and actually try to outdo TDK however many times until THIS version of the Batman story is completed. But, since life never is, maybe Batman can go on forever this way while still being creative and progressive, who knows.

If one thing hurts film, it's, like anything else, dogma.

And by completing the story, I mean a question that no other superhero movie besides Nolan's has questioned: "Can there be a day when this is all over?" At least someone has asked the question to start the theses/debates.

And by Dogma I mean the same thing that made everyone insult Heath Ledger. "WHATT?? HOW CAN ANYONE EVER DO BETTER???? WE ACCEPT WHAT WE SEE AND LEAVE IT THERE WITHOUT THINKING FOR OURSELVES!!"