All solid reasons…but I think the biggest reason to make Batman 3 is still because frankly, that movie offered a spec of light (ironic considering the grim tone of the film) during generally rough times in the US. When something is almost uniamously praised in our country, it is rare enough, and when that something is used as an escape by so many (consciously or subconsciously), you can't deprive the public of more.

Also we need Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard to work together again. Soon.

@Chris C: Ha, the Zimmer/Newton Howard collaboration was actually one of the items that just missed my top ten.

great article..I absolutely agree

You couldn't have picked a better number one reason. When it does get made, if Christopher Nolan isn't at the helm, I don't think I'll want to see it.

How about the Riddler as the serial killer character you talked of? Possibly planting riddles blaming the Batman which would continue the whole Gotham hating Batman.

Here's another big reason: because current stars of the films might want to bail out of their contracts if Nolan doesn't come back, and high quality acting talent might not want to come into the project for the third film if Nolan isn't on board. The man hasn't made a bad feature length film yet.

There's just one problem with your number 1 reason, isn't it postponing the inevitable?
If they get back Nolan and the cast, they'll make sure it'll be good. They'll do anything to get it up to standard.
That will draw in the crowds and make the studio lots of money.

If 3 makes lots of money, there will be a 4……. and it all starts again.
And no, killing off Batman at the end of 3 won't work. Either they won't let Nolan do that or they'll get Ratner bring him back in some miraculous manner at the beginning of 4.

It's a fun list, and most are valid. Just one thing to keep in mind, Batman is not loved in Gotham. Was never loved in Gotham. He is feared. By both innocent and criminal alike. There might be feelings of awe & curiosity. Both admiration for his courage, and condemnation for his self-righteousness. But make no mistake, he is feared. Batman is a rumor, an urban legend. There are no photos of him. If he shows himself to you, it means you've done something wrong and you're in deep, deep trouble. He's not Spiderman… he doesn't want to be loved. Batman is a votive that people will not tolerate evil. If Christopher Nolan goes this route, he will not need a villain.

I want to see a Batman-Swat Chase like I saw In Batman Mask Of The Phantasm when he's runnin' around the construction site avoiding bullets and explosions in Imax. that'd be siiiiqq

Because James Newton Howard and Han Zimmer need another chance at Best Musical Score after AMPAS got anal and shot down their TDK score.

I agree with your #1. Can you imagine if Nolan passed on the 3rd film. I believe he will take his time and make sure there is a solid story and script before any filming begins. I might be in the minority but I enjoyed Spiderman 3. While not as good as the first two It worked for me, despite being cluttered with too many characters.
Also- I actually like the idea of Hoffman as the penquin! If he played it with the same nastiness as his villian in MI 3 it would be really good! I don't want Depp anywhere near this project.

Chuck

Will everyone get real.

Batman 3 WILL be made and it will be a box office success because of fanatics like the guy who wrote the article… however all these reasons to make the dark knight sequel are just pure crap. The Dark Knight was NOT a great film, far from it, and it certainly wasn't as good as people keep hyping it up to be.

Batman 3 will be made because of the money it'll rake in and it'll no doubt be directed by Christopher Nolan.

I agree with all of your reasons, but I am pretty sick of people implying that Nolan is somehow above Catwoman. She's not just a villian, for many she's considered his one true love and almost as much of an icon as he is, why shouldn't he use her for the third film? I'm not saying he will, I'm just saying I think he could pull it off.

("For all intents and purposes, should someone have enough money and the motivation there is no reason why someone couldn’t come damn close to becoming a real life Batman.")

To become a batman one must fulfill the following conditions:
1. must possess super-human intelligence(Batman is a criminologist and has mastered many other topics in Science(Check Wikipedia)).
2. must have outstanding detecting/perceptive/intuitive abilities.
3. should have inherited exceptionally great physical genes from one's ancestors.
4. must have developed an obsessive, psychotic mind in early life searching for some revenge over some deep cruel personal reason.
5. must have earned enough money to make oneself a 'one-in-a-billion' type billioniare with billions of money to spare.
6. must be a smooth operator (basically an Alpha-man) with ladies.

If one misses ANY one of these SIX qualities, one will NOT become a Batman.

…And I think no one will.

Apart from that small part in Reason 2, all Reasons (including Reason 2 – Batman is realistic) were valid. Especially Reason 1.

But Ratner did blow me away with his Red Dragon(2003) which for me is a masterpiece which I never, never, never ever expected of him. But Batman is altogether different ballpark.

Number 6 is weird because Arkham was featured in Batman Begins.

@Oi Vey: Arkaham was featured in Batman Begins but was not the centre topic of BB and nothing is known about the workings and nature of Arkham.

@fatman: Will YOU get real? Yeah, yeah, I get it, the lame "I'm too cool to like anything" contrary view. Sorry, no, you are wrong. TDK made buttloads of money and got rave reviews because it was great. If you'd just said you opinion is that it's overrated etc, that'd be one thing – but you didn't, you told us to "get real" and then asserted the reasons in the article are "crap" and insist TDK is "NOT" great as a fact. So you forgo any after-the-fact whining that it's just your opinion blah blah. So please, do spare us your fanatical "I shall disagree with majority opinion to prove how cool I am" crap, will you?

Cuaron could pull it of…I think….or maybe somebody like Aronofsky (he was attached once, remember?) But all hope has to go to Nolan gettin back in the director's chair. I think he will, just let him go and do his own thing (like when he did the prestige right after 'begins').

@Amol: Do me a favour! 'Red Dragon' looked like an episode of 'Coronation Street' (if American, replace with any generic soap opera), and had Anthony Hopkins hamming it up nearly as much as he dd in 'Hannibal'!

'Manhunter' – Michael Mann's adaptation of the book – is much closer to the "masterpiece" you declare 'Red Dragon' to be.

@Hornfinger: I haven't yet read or watched 'Manhunter'. SO YOU MAY BE RIGHT AFTER ALL! Because since you watched MH as well as RD you are in a better position to judge them.

As for Ridley Scott's 'Hannibal(2001)', I think Scott did a great job overall but then that's my personal opinion. Regarding Ratner's 'Red Dragon(2003)', I liked what I saw. Though I definitely will read and watch 'Man Hunter' now and then take an overall decision.

@Amol: while it's true that the Batman in the comic books possessed all these qualities, the Batman in the movie did not.
Your first characteristic is not true of Nolan's version of Batman; every gadget he has was created by the Applied Sciences division of Wayne Enterprises (and by Lucius Fox). Your second characteristic may be true, but we haven't seen much of a display of these abilities in either Batman Begins or TDK even if he were to have them. As for your fourth characteristic, the Batman in the comic books was MUCH more obsessive than the Batman in TDK.
That said, your other characteristics were spot-on. ESPECIALLY the fifth one, because without the money or connections there is no way he could have afforded to dedicate his life to fighting crime or researching. But even so, you're absolutely right when you say no one would be able to become Batman, even if it's this remotely plausible.

@Jon: Firstly, thanks for your support.

Secondly,regarding your statement,

("Your first characteristic is not true of Nolan’s version of Batman; every gadget he has was created by the Applied Sciences division of Wayne Enterprises (and by Lucius Fox). ")

It is absolutely correct, except… In my FIRST characteristic, I was talking about THE SCIENCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGY/MENTALITY/METHODS/MODUS OPERANDI OF THE CRIMINAL MIND and NOT the technology that The Batman himself used.

As for comparing movies, with their original novel adaptations, as you know, its not always possible to do COMPLETE justice to the sources, as the movie has only two and a half hours to cover the whole topic while the novel has the leisure of an infinite time and space to cover each sub-topic.

When I personally rate a movie, I first give priority to the INTENTION of the script and the director to live up to the original source and personally I think Nolan tried to do that and was successful as much as possible. The pre-Nolan Batman movies were campy adaptations of Batman: of the children, for the children. Nothing wrong with that.
Just that Nolan's Batman is NOT for children as he is realistic.

HERE: I have compared the treatment given to each Batman movie with the Top 25 critically acclaimed Batman novels rated at IGN COMICS (I own ALL the Top 25 novels plus many many more). I recommend that site to every Bat-fan and read them and then compare them to all the full length Bat-feature films ever made. Nolan will come out truimphs.

…penguin, riddler or catwoman can still be made to a realistic level as a villain. like in your article, if nolan & his team can create a hero wearing a bat suit & a mask realistically, why cant these villains be as well? a glimpse of scarecrow in 'batman begins' proved to be a good job as well. in the third installment, it would nice to throw more thugs or gangs into the mix. now that's a good chaotic ending to clean up (in a nice level of realism) for the trilogy…in case nolan is calling it quits after batman 3

…nice observation! nice article!

The 1st reason made me crack-up.
Yeah, please keep Ratner away … Mr. Nolan, come up – brainstorm something cool for us. Something MUCH cooler than all the lame plot ideas I've been hearing on blogs and on comment pages like this. (Not to fans, this is why YOU don't make movies).
And cast whoever you want. Every blogger thought Ledger was a lousy choice and you proved them wrong. Let's see what you come up with now!

Two-Face is alive — i dont care how much Nolan likes to say hes dead — Two faces survival totally redeems batman. Think about it this way, they could of blamed the death on the joker — why batman? Two Faces return will be climatic — it will prove batman didnt kill him, it may even give Harvey a chance for redemption himself — ala Harry in Spiderman? Personally I'd bet for a return.

I dont buy two face is alive the idear would suck and spoile the ending of TDK
ala spiderman!that sucked but not as much as sandmans bad apology at the end
i like the idear of poisen ivey as an eco terorist,ridler done well im thinking a hannible lector sort of take on him would be cool.the films gona get made we just need it to be done well!! or we could be faced with batman n robin all over again with cloony reprising is role.if that happens they will be responsble for blood on there hands

Your reasons are valid, but I notice the focus is for the FANS benefit, maybe even the studio's benefit, but not Nolan's benefit. And that is what is needed to bring Nolan back into the director's chair. We know that TDK made more money in the theatre than most third world nations. We can be reasonably assured that the DVD sales are going to practically double the income. We can only hope that Warner Brothers wasn't tight-fisted with the contracts, and made sure that everyone involved got a nice cut of the pie. I think that Nolan can be convinced to come back, but the challenge is going to be the same as what Raimi claimed for Spider-man… "Where can I take the character? What growth, what evolution of character can I challenge him with that the audience will relate?" In many aspects, we are fortunate, because of the dark somber ending of TDK… it allows the obvious challenge… redemption. With that in mind, a Catwoman story can also echo this, a dark mirror to Bruce's own. As much as I'd love to see Hoffman or Giamatti play the Penguin as an arms dealer looking for his money [burned by the Joker], or even a Riddler story about a blackmail artist who dedicates himself to his latest obsession, the riddle of Batman… neither can provide that redemption angle like Catwoman could. In truth, I can only think of one villain who'd fit the bill as good as Catwoman, and in Nolan's style of wanting to use villains that haven't gotten screentime, Black Mask fits the bill in both grounded and realistic angles. He's another boy billionnaire, a man who could have been a Batman himself, but instead chose to lead the criminal element rather than destroy it. I think the power in this parallel could work wonderfully, if Nolan chose to exploit it.

i think Joaquin Phoenix would make a good Black Mask. Especially if they deal with the plots more mechanically like Prison Break because they cant simply do TDK again. I think the Riddler is just a lesser Joker, and i prefer Black Mask to Penguin.

@s:

Unfortunately, Joaquin Phoenix announced his retirement from motion pictures not that long ago, to pursue a career as a country music singer. Apparently, he really got into playing Johnny Cash… ;)

a bit of brainstorming:
how about riddler as a small time politician making it big in gotham, backed by mafia which is headed by black mask while new arrival penguin deals with batman for black mask's identity?
:)

crispin glover has no credibility. the guy was in 'like mike' for godsakes. the guy is not smart. and he cannot act. just look at his short films and then look at heath ledger's short films. that should tell you who is smarter and has more talent.