That picture of Kristen Bell as Harley Quinn is… disturbing. (My favorite bullshit casting for that role was Amy Adams. That would be kind of awesome.)

I thought Following was absolutely brilliant, even more so for being a completely independent film without even the backing of a small studio, just a dude, a camera, and a hell of a story. I didn't care for Insomnia, but everything else Nolan has done is sheer, utter brilliance.

I didn't hate Batman Forever. Then again, I was about 10 when it came out. There are a lot of movies that I watched repeatedly as a child (we didn't have cable, so VHS was the standard entertainer) that to this day I cannot determine whether I like because they're enjoyable, or because I loved them as a kid.

Whatever follows Dark Knight faces a huge uphill battle. And I think that Ledger's death struck a deeper blow than we may have realized, as I could definitely see the character being established as a truly recurring villain in the franchise. Batman without the Joker is unimaginable, but that's what we've been left with.

I like the list and the points you make, but I dont know….I think batman needs a bit of a better ending, (but only if its better) The Dark Knight to me just leaves so much more to be done, the joker is left hanging there, harvey dent just died, batman just started to go on the run, and rachel is.. dead?!?! ( I have a suspision that they could bring her back as cat women) not sure that it would make sense if they did, but o well. So yea I think there is still more story to be told, but i really would hate if it was a bad movie.

This might become a new thing in the superhero movie, the Spiderman 3 syndrom.
Yeah I enjoyed it as well but was quite dissapointed at the same time.

They went from 2 to 3 villains including Venom which for me had the greatest potential. It just didn't translate well onto the screen.
So you get the danger of having to try to hard to make it bigger and better. Overshooting your goal.

2 allso had Doc Ock, perhaps not the greatest villian but very well done by Alfred Molina. Hard to top that, as it turns out.
Like you said, it's seems unlikely you can top Ledgers Joker?

As you adressed, will you get all the cast/crew back?
Ok Spidey 3 didn't have that problem. X-men 3 did with the director. I did like x-3 but it was quite different.
On the other hand, Singer went on to do Superman Returns and looking back at that X-3 could've been so much worse.
And replacing Katie Holmes was a very good move. Maggie was quite good in TDK. (Yes I see removing Katie and bringing in Maggie as two seperate plus points)

Spidey 3 was bad enough to demand a fourth which in turn has to bigger again so 4 will run into a number 5. Otherwise it just couldn't be bigger could it. And that just leaves so much room for screw ups it's could kill the franchise.

Now what you said about Two Face being dead im not sure about. the thing is, he has that double sided coin one side (the clean side) means you live and the other (the scratched out side) means you die. When he fell to his suposed death the coin fell with him, now the question is what side did the coin land on? Something tells me that it landed on the living side but i really cant remember. Its just that if the coin says live then Two Face can come back, which would be amazing.

I personaly thought that they did not show enough of Harvey as Two Face, then again I also believed that the Joker did not get as much screen time as he should have. What can I say, Id rather see Action and Plots rather then Love stories, seriously this is an action movie based off an amazing comic book, dont streach out Love lines if I wanted to watch a chick flick, I wouldnt be watching Batman. Thats my rant on that lol.

Back to my point and question, if the coin was clean Two Face can come back whenever i mean even if it landed standing up thats cause for an open end to weither or not he died.

The Joker has been put away, which sucks and could have gotten out, but Heath is no longer with us, and no one can top him, so thats out. With Harley Quinn she cant really be in Batman without the Joker, it wouldnt do the comic-book justice. The Riddler is a fun one to watch but hed have to be teamed up with someone, again the Joker would be best but we cant do that. The Penguin is kinda lame as a villian but team him up with Mr. Freeze and that could work. Catwoman is cool but again pretty lame as a villian, she is more of a sex symble then anything else same as Poison Ivy but Poison Ivy has cool powers, it could work teaming them up too, the problem is finding the right people to play them and to be able to live up to the standerds that Heath Ledger left as a Batman villan.

So with Batman 3, I think it's pretty much a bad idea. Unless you can top Dark Knight or come close to it, another Batman movie will just ruin everything that they achieved with Dark Knight.

@Sydney:

According to the screenplay and Aaron Eckhart, Two-Face is dead. Dead.

Two-Face is dead according to the script, so no point dicussing that. I agree that TDK had an unfinished feel to it, so a third one is essential for me. As long as the main cast members return, and Nolan directs, they need to make it.

The problem with a third movie, besides the obvious "how are you going to top the last one?" question, is the main character is really in no danger. I can watch Spiderman 3 and know he is going to live. There's no suspense to it.

The casting rumors out there are so irritating. And what makes it worse is some of the people that want a third movie believe it and thinks it's a great idea. They want a movie to trump the previous film, but agree to the obvious flaws as legitimate successors or solutions. Christopher Nolan's version of Batman is crime-drama. Real world. The Joker and Two-Face worked because they can exist in the real world. Christopher Nolan said it himself, "there is no such thing as Superman."

There will be no third film. TDK's ending was great. Christopher Nolan set it up beautifully… Batman on the Bat-Pod (substituting for a horse), riding off into Gotham's obscured street lamps with its collective light resembling the sun. Batman rides off into the sunset. It's both finished and unfinished. It's a cool cliché, and it works because it leaves you wanting more.

In the TDK version, Sal Maroni is afraid of what the Batman can do, but not totally afraid because he has rules. Naturally, Gotham's criminals feel the same way. With the Batman claiming the murders, the criminals now totally fear him. Batman is now truly feared by everyone and hunted by the authorities. And with Batman's image in the public eye being unresolved, it is a non-verbal way of saying that his work will never be done.

@Jack:
That was a pretty brilliant examination, way better than the superficial dreck I wrote for this top 10. However, one disagreement. There will be WITHOUT A DOUBT a Third film. I wish the movie business was about creating art. However, that's just a nice side-product of the industry. The movie business is about making money. As artful of a choice it would be to leave The Dark Knight as the final chapter, it just made too much money for there Not to be a third film.

It was amusing to read your thoughts on The 10 Bulls*@t reasons to not make Batman 3. I have to say I agreed with a few and well I so thoroughly disagree with the others that even thinking about it makes me want to puke and then puke some more. I would like to point out each and every one of those reasons and rape them and give them back to you, but alas I haven’t the time to sacrifice on such a satisfying journey. Instead I would like to rape your number 1 reason “We Don’t Even Need a Third Movie” which is the god awful, most horrid reason I have heard… ever. And I can only conclude to why you would have such a thought. Well because you are afraid of that the third movie will either fail or will rock your world. And as a fan you are afraid to gamble. Well my dear fellow, grab your balls and muster some courage for goodness sake. If not for the gamble what do we have left? Would you rather sway blissfully in the memories of the awesomeness of The Dark Knight and float around in its story ever wondering what happens now? What happens to our caped crusader? I say look forward, expect the unexpected and most of all have faith. Nolan managed to pull a miracle and I believe he can do it again. All I ask is you share the same faith and put your time to a more constructive use and please do NOT write these pissy articles.

A fan like you
7244642855
(It’s a code, smile!)

thank you god for david frank. finally someone who's got the common sense to say the right stuff.
NO BATMAN 3 MOVIE is my vote.
it would just result in doom & everlasting destruction…much like the setting in THE ROAD–the sky will show no sun & people will eat other people's legs.
literally.

Thank you for the compliment.

It was just wishful thinking on my part to say that there be no follow-up to TDK, when I should've said "There should be no third film." But you're right, there will be a third Batman movie. If Christopher Nolan opts not to direct it (which is what he is leaning towards), it will definitely have a new cast. Geniuses as they are, Warner Bros will still go through with it because, like you said, it will make money. You'd think with an obvious flaw, they'd reconsider. But then again, these are the people who decided that Superman needed to be "dark" as well in its new incarnation. Superman is Norman Rockwell and about hope, Batman is Gustave Doré and about anger. Stick to the original and you can't go wrong. If Warner Bros wants a dark Superman movie, you don't turn Superman dark, you put Superman is darkness. Everyone knows that when you juxtapose light and darkness, you get the best of both most spectrums.

If Christopher Nolan decides to make a third Batman film, like TDK, it should be able to stand on its own. He should do it in a period of time in Batman's life. It should be at Batman's twilight (á la The Dark Knight Returns). Have the government bring him in, and kill him in the process. Nothing solved, no closure.

Wow, David, one clever, cute word in front of another… the Jim Rome of litereay notation… tell me, do you have a multltude of writers that do this for you or do you just throw darts at open dictionary pages?

@oldguybc:
multitudes of squirrels, high on cocaine, throwing darts

I must say I enjoyed what your wrote and some I agreed with and some didn't but I want you to take a loot at how Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are. They are based on Batmans life not anyone elses so that idea you had (the dark knight returns) would be interesting but what about the aspect of having them move on to another story of his life because besides scarecrow and the small love story not much else came over from Batman Begins,so point I'm making is they are chapters of Batmans life so you could do a third Batman about him running from the law and trying to fix what the joker tore apart and also have lets say the riddler who could fit in the real world( a man driven by the question or riddle of who is the Batman or also how he just loves to think he's smarter than anyone else and is looking for fair game) there are many different ways the riddler could fit into this because of how things are left and Nolan said if there's a good story he will do it. So see joker doesn't need to be in this one really cause it has many many different ways it can go without him there(no disrespect to him or Heath) but there can be a third film using someone else. I normally don't write much and sorry if some of this didn't make much sense but there is still a lot about Batmans life to be told. I personally think its too bad that mr. Freeze is out of the question such a dark sad amazing story behind him

I agree and disagree with some of the reasons. I however, want another batman film just because I do. And I don't feel bad about wanting another one. I want to go to the theater and experience the suspense and wonderfulness of the whole thing again. I think movies are supposed to be art, sure. But they are, when all is said and done, entertainment. If the next one sucks, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. And so will everyone else, I imagine. One other note–a reason that they should make another batman film: CHRISTIAN BALE, CHRISTIAN BALE, CHRISTIAN BALE. Mmmm.

I think you should have added Robert Pattinson from "Twilight" to your list of up-and-coming male movie stars…wait, wrong one.

I did enjoy this list & I agree with most of the reasons (However, I'm one of the few who enjoyed Xmen 3 & found that Batman Forever was ridiculous but pretty fun still).

But there needn't be a list. There's only one reason why it shouldn't be made: It's unnecessary. There will be way too many comparisons to "TDK", the hype will reach a level so great that the movie will be doomed from the start, and "TDK" ended on such a great not that the story doesn't need to really be extended. Mr. Nolan, Mr. Bale- Go out on top and move on. This was a great movie, a great pop culture event, but there's no need to potentially hurt the movie's reputation by making a third film.

No Batman 3 would be madness. Seriously. Movie makers don't care about anything but money, and seeing as TDK was the second – biggest money maker out there, making a third one is REQUIRED. I mean comeon, most people say there's not going to be a Batman 3 just because Heath passed away. I loved him, he was great, but it's time for another super badass villian to take the reins. There was too much left unsaid in TDK, too many open – edges. Their going to make another, Jack, and no matter what you spit out, everyone here knows it. So just accept the facts dude.

The fact that Batman is left as a villan, leaves open the possibillity that Gotham City will need the assistance of another super hero to capture him. Calling Metropolis. The sequel to Superman Returns also has not yet been made. In DC Comics there are numerous cross-over Batman/Superman issues. The ending allows the combination to come out as the sequel to both franchises. Real crimes could still be committed and pinned on Batman by such villans as the Riddler, the Calculator, or the Penguin. Even Raz ah Goul's daughther could mastermine such a plan. Which could eventually lead to Batman and Superman combining efforts to stop the real criminals and restore Batman's reputation.

Personally i think that Batman 3 would work as there is still so much to use. I think two face was very underused and when Harvey became TF I thought there was going to be far more but when he 'died' I felt a bit disapionted and could've used him in Batman 3. Also I like the riddler idea, they could use him as someone who is troubled/mixed up but very clever with his riddles and is, like someone pointed out already, obsessed with who Batman is and not like Jim Carey's character a zany genius 'manipulating brainwaves' and suddenly having ridiculous suits/haircuts/lairs and not being too zany/over the top. They can make him more 'real world' like I say make him screwed up and also instead of sending riddles to batman (like in Forever) he could write and leave riddles next to his victims about his whereabouts or even if he is holding someone or everyone hostage he could leave a riddle for batman to solve with a time limit or someone or that person dies.

Also if they had to reserect Two Face then great, he and Riddler would then team up (Like in Forever but not as ridiculous). Cant see any other villians (Mr Freeze, Catwoman, penquin ect) working. Using the riddler world make things more tongue in cheek and complex, but also with a more human story behind the character and what made him turn to crime.

What I love about what Christopher Nolan has done is making the characters more life like or more human and not dressing them up in stupid costumes and living in over the top lairs and stuff. Look at 'Begins' all 'Baddies' were normal people.

I think someone like Giovanni Ribisi would be good as Riddler Ive seen him in a few 'screwed up' roles and plays them very well and belivable.

There will be a third movie. I know I'm not blowing minds right now, but there will be a third movie. The only things you can hope for at this point are that the same cast/crew returns and Ledgers absence will be handled with class and elegance as opposed to some lame re-casting.

Also, why be negative when all it does is make you sound like a whiney loser with too much time on their hands. Think of how a third movie could possibly be WELL done. Maybe the Joker is Arkham, and his scenes are shot so whoever ends up filling the role is only seen in shadows, masking his face. Think of Crispin Glover in Back to The Future II, oh wait he wasn't in that but who the hell remembers because of how well they covered up it was an entirely different actor. They hung him upside down and covered his face with layers of makeup and guess what, you can hardly tell the difference. Now I'm not comparing Glovers George McFly to Ledgers Joker, I'm simply saying there are definitely ways to TRY to create the illusion that its still Ledgers Joker. And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If his character is marginalized and hidden, I'd be okay with that.

Another thing, ANY villian that has been mentioned thus far only sounds retarded. Honestly, who are we kidding? Catwoman, the Penguin, Mr. Freeze in one of Nolans films would just plain and simple, be retarded. Even the Riddler would be too over-the-top for the Nolan-verse of Batman.

Hopefully Nolan will continue to pull from cop-drama movies, ala HEAT, to continue the semi-believeable world where a city is at odds with itself and its vigilante/hero whose public image has been turned upside down.

Also, isn't the mob still running rampant in Gotham?

Yeah I thought about the prospect of Ledger's Joker returning in the way they did Oliver Reed in Gladiator when he died during the making of the film or like they did with Brandan Lee during The Crow. What with todays technology it's possible, even if it's for just a few scene's. I want Batman to continue for another film and then stop whilst they are ahead, make Batman 3 the finale I say.

Wow. That list is flawed. Really flawed. How much awesomeness can the human brain handle? It was at that point, I was sure I didn't have to take this seriously. First off, there will be a third Batman. For the exact reason you stated in your list, usually when people catch midnight showings and everyone skips work the next day, and people have waited three years to see the next chapter of a franchise, it's a general disappointment and everyone can go home unsatisfied and vowing they will never see that movie again. But, The Dark Knight didn't match people's expectations, it blew them away. So much so, that it's the second highest box office grossing film ever! Now tell me if you're running Warner Bros and you knew that even MORE people were gonna flock to theaters to see The Dark Knight Returns you wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity?

However, this leads to another interesting point. People have gotten better about sniffing out the suck in a movie. Mostly, that's thanks to the internet and how the news travels about directors and new projects. If Nolan walks on Batman 3, expect a HUGE backlash from fans. It'll be like when fans petitioned Peter Jackson to work on the Hobbit. Even though New Line hated Peter Jackson they were forced to attach him as a producer to the Hobbit cause the fans demanded it.

So they will do Batman 3, and they will bring back everyone (probably everyone). And the last question is will it be as good at The Dark Knight. No way. You can't expect that. People were claiming that The Dark Knight for Nolan, was Scorcesese's "Goodfellas" or Michael Mann's "Heat". You can't expect him to simply come back and make an even better classic. But there are intriguing villans left, The Riddler is a super cool villian. Catwoman fucks Batman up. She tears his heart out in a way that Rachel Dawes never does. That relationship would be phenomenal if Nolan can capture it right. The last thing is that whoever is cast, whatever the plot you can no longer phone in these comic book performances. That's how it used to be. Uma Thurman is up on the screen half assing her Poison Ivy character, George Clooney is breaking onto the big screen as the third Batman. So Nolan needs to take time, A LOT of time before doing Batman 3. I'd suggest he goes and does a new film, much like he did with the Presitge, cause The Dark Knight was so good that it's better for us to wait and get the movie we want. Rather than he rushes it for the studio and we get another Spiderman 3. And Nolan knows this. It's probably why he did it the first time.

Fun top ten list. I like the point about Viral Marketing.

It will take a minute to get to my Batman sequel point but I have to address some of the other sequels you mentioned.

X3 was problematic because of execution, not story; not to mention the repeated awkward use of the word "bitch" directed at young girls (yeah, I know one of them was Mystique). Also, the need for characters to explain their powers when we already accept their world… note the exchange between other characters and Magneto on Golden Gate bridge.

Spider-Man 3 was problematic because they tried to do too much (and because most of us will never be able to take Topher Grace, Eric Foreman forever, seriously enough for him to be convincing as Venom).

Superman 3 was problematic because it tried to be a comedy and though Superman may be whimsical at times but he's not a comedic figure. Love Richard Pryor but not as an annoying second banana in a Superhero movie.

Blade Trinity was every bit as good/bad as the first two movies. The only thing that really made it stupid was unnessary and pretentious expositional narration. Loved Parker Posey.

Batman Forever was bad because of neon cartoonishness. Neon, as a design element, ruins any feeling of reality and makes anything around it seem contrived… like the designer doesn't know how to protray futuristic ideas without over-effect in lighting hues. Sorry, 80's. The Batman and Robin failure can also be blamed on neon and extreme sports, though the movie's ultimate downfall is assisted by flurries of bad "cold" puns ("flurries" pun intended).

If Nolan should make another Batman film, I think it should be about Rachel Dawes becoming Catwoman as a reaction to the events in TDK. Rachel Dawes is the closest thing to our Batman's heart and is really one of the few stories left to tell in this vision of the Batman as a truly human man. Maggie Gyllenhaal is more than capable of both the depth of character and sex appeal of Catwoman.

Robin and the "ward of Bruce Wayne" story could be interesting in that it speaks to Bruce Wayne coming to terms with being an orphan by learning what it is to be a parent. Other than that the only story I could see would be about how Bruce Wayne can finally stop being Batman, even if that only comes through his own death.

But if we can only discuss a sequel in terms of "who" the antagonist is instead of "what" then maybe there really shouldn't be another. As comic fans, we rightfully think of the rogues gallery but we forget that Nolan's portrayal of Batman has such appeal because it places him in a very real world and exposes his vulnerabilities as a man and not only as a superhero. Action sequences are action sequences and a Batcopter or Batwing would be cool. But if there's no compelling intention to the character's actions, there's no movie.

First I'd like to state my opinion that Following is Nolans best movie, with the Prestige as a second.

Secondly there was this rumor during shooting of Batman Begins that it would more closely resemble Frank Millers genial Year One than not. In retrospect I might have been naive to even hope for such a thing, considering that it is not what you can push onto a mass audience. Batman will be around for several decades more, and he will always be able to produce a profit to the companies involved, rest assured. But he will have to be reinvented in intervals in order to do so.

What would be another problem with a third installment in the series is that a third film should have to be if possible even darker than the second. After all the batty guy is measured in terms of his route towards self destruction. Unfortunately, I doubt that he will be allowed to kick the bucket, as much as Alfred or Gordon would go postal, all of which would in itself redefine the Batman mythos.

I'd like to see a third batman for a superficial (sp?) reason.
1989's Batman had the flying batmobile. I'd like to see Nolan use that. Anyone's thoughts on that?

I do agree with your point, sequels are hard to pull off as it is and a trilogy would be going against the odds. Although, it is inevitable, whether or not any of the original production crew or cast return. Reason of course being money, and why not, if your in the business of movie making, your last film grossed at $500 million. You be the stupidest businessman in the world not to go forward with another film.

BTW: Spiderman 3 was one of the worst films I've seen.

Without a doubt, there will be a third film. I personally think Johnny Depp would be a good choice for the Riddler, but he would have to make it different enough from the Joker. Catwoman would also be very cool, depending on who they cast. I can definitely see those two being the villains. The Penguin, not so much. He's too unrealistic for Nolan's Batman world and a terrible villain to boot. As for the story for movie 3, I'm sure there are plenty of great plots from the comics to pick from. Sadly, most of them probably have to do with the Joker. And lastly, the third movie should have more action than either of the last two combined. It is simply the only way to top The Dark Knight.

I dunno, I still hope there's a third Batman movie on the way. Christopher Nolan is a genius, and yeah, the third film probably won't be able to match the success of Dark Knight, but as long as it rides the same tier, I wouldn't be disappointed.

Nolan said he didn't want to include Robin (since his Batman is still in his younger years as the Caped Crusader anyhow) and he was going to try and focus on the villains not portrayed on film or television yet.

Did anyone see that fake Riddler poster for Batman 3? I was amazed. The Riddler would fit perfectly into Nolan's Batman world, I think.

If nolan didn't direct the third batman film it will suck. And I mean suck. The dark knight was loved by everyone who had half a brain. IT is the best movie of the year so far. No one can deny that. If a thrid batman movie comes out whcih it will, and Nolans not directing it won't be half as good as Dark knight. This will mean that it will be a huge let down. I know I won't go and see it in cinemas if nolan's not directing. I'd wait for dvd.

Besides we all know he will do it. Warner bros will offer him more money then he has in his bank account right now.

@aerinpegadrak: You know, I've heard the Harley Quinn rumor a few times as well (not that I've put any stock in it), and the same question bothers me about it: "How can you have a Harley Quinn without the Joker?". It just doesn't work at all.

I'd love a story like the "Arkham Asylum" graphic novel. It could open the door for lesser known criminals, but in high enough numbers to make the threat viable. Unlike many, I think an ultra-brilliant Penguin might be visualized as a major crime boss filling the vacuum left by Maroni's death. A twisted Riddler as a serial killer with a impulse to leave truly wicked clues may work as it would tend to set the character off against the Joker's brand of homicidal maniac.

It's hard to conceive of some of the lesser player's (in small doses) in the Rogue's Gallery being enough of a threat. Many (like Man-Bat and Kiler Croc) just won't fit Nolan's excellent determination to stay realistic.

FWIW.

No. 7 is a riot considering that Batman Begins already had a replacement for Rachel Dawes. Didn't hurt the reviews. Maybe they'll replace Aaron Eckhart with Billy Dee Williams — that would be called Justice, IMHO. How about replacing Michael Caine with Michael Gambon. Worked for the Potter series. And, who's going to replace the great Heath Ledger? Joker didn't die and you know he's going to escape Arkham Asylum! Everybody is replaceable — even Christian Bale!

One more reason: like liklihood of Robin showing up again.

Cher's casting as Catwoman would make any of Schumacher's efforts seem almost Shakespearean.

Angelina Jolee, otoh….

This list is a fun-list and not a flawed list and let's not rape it even if we could, on each and every reason. It's less anti-(Batman movie) and more pro-(Batman).

Let's remember and recall one DEFINITE point. This Batman belongs to Christopher Nolan and his vision. If anyone is the guy to break the Superhero-Part-3-Failure Syndrome, it has to be Nolan. So except him, his brother and perhaps David Goyer: Everyone else is replacable. EVERYONE ELSE.

This universe survives on hope, inspiration, PERFORMANCE, gambling, risks and not on negativity and comfortable cushions. Had people stopped making movies just because Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin made the masterpiece 'The Kid' and it could not be (and has not been) bettered, there would not have been movies made since 1931. 'The Joker' is Ledger's greatest Oscar-deserving performance. Prior to TDK I had only watched Ledger's 'The Knight's Tale' (or something like it. I won't ever watch the critically acclaimed 'Brokeback Mountain'. That's for sure. Nothing against the gays, but would have loved it had it been about two females instead of two males. I am a male afterall.). But Performance can come from anywhere. The end of Ledger does not mean the end of 'The Joker'. The Character is always greater than the Actor. There is always someone waiting in the wings.

Observing the impressive resume of Christoper Nolan, he is yet to give us a bad film. So resuming the mantle of a movie like 'Batman-3' he will be even more careful about it. Honest truthful efforts from Nolan + Frank Miller's Batman = ATLEAST an ABOVE-average film. Most importantly it will DEFINITELY be better than all those dissappointing Part Threes. I
only hope he does not rush into it and hope he gives us an another 'Prestige' or 'Memento' in between to clean his mind-slate.

If a movie makes $ 500 million domestically and a $ Billion World-wide, is accepted by critics and fans alike, is being in the race for Best Picture consideration, won't its producers make a sequel to it ? They would be morons not to.

Rachael is as Dead as a door-nail. Two-Face is as Dead as a Dodo. They are only been kept alive as a coin's decision, or as a Catwoman or as a only-devil-knows-what only by the conspiracy-theorists. And for heaven's sake, NO ONE from BB and TDK will be the eventual Catwoman. Speaking of her, the Catwoman from the novel 'Hush(2002)' is the one I have fallen in love with forever. But that brilliant storyline can't be repeated in the Nolaniverse unless… some of those Bat-villains are omitted. And I think they can be. It's futile US discussing what villains should be in Batman-3 but the nasty ugly Black Mask could suit in this Nolaniverse (only after 'Hush'). Though, Riddler also is not a bad choice. While I feel romantic for Catwoman from Hush(2002), I feel lusty for Harley Quinn from Mad Love(1994). But no puddin' (…Oh, I mean Harley's Joker) means no Harley Quinn. Only Nolan will know better. Whatever choice he makes, he will do justice to it(even to the Penguin). It could be that our Bat has to face this new villain in the middle of the task of clarifying his own image and only at the end people see light.

I would like Nolan's Batman to go out with a Bang in Batman-3 instead of with his tail between his legs as in TDK.

Afterall he is UNdoubtedly the real people's greatest Superhero and is people's hope, however dark he maybe. And as a Bat-fan, I would not like him to end in the TDK's end, however much critically acclaimed the end may be. But there's a catch: Nolan has to sign a third Batman movie first.

… And yes, the more there are good-quality Batman movies out there, the more fun out there is.

P.S.: Has anybody read/heard about the rumours/reality of Grant Morrison killing The Batman off in this month's next novel ?

seeing how there is going to be a third one it will have to be either:
A) so bad (intentionally, mind you) that the people in charge will stay away from making another sequel since it would appear to be toxic.

B) they would have to top TDK (duh) and make something more epic than it. though any batman fan would know that the joker escapes every time he's captured, his character is easy to take care of. there will just have to be a really good viillian, since they obviously cant top Ledger why try? they just need to do the best they can with whatever character they are… maybe Nolan can do Long Halloween. that was a really good graphic novel that puts you in the middle of the batman universe. i think nolan raped the Two-face character by taking too many liberties with him and not caring about him as much as the joker…

no matter what i will see the next batman movie. its interesting to see so many interpretations of one superhero. (possibly why batman is superior to superman)

@Richard: Yes, well said. Even though Harvey Dent/Two-face performance was good enough by Eckhart, Nolan should not have manipulated MUCH with the original story-line of Dent/Two-Face. The Long Halloween has captured Dent/Two-face so brilliantly. But as I said Dent/Two-Face has met the eventuality of a Dodo in TDK. So any story related to Dent/Two Face (The Long Halloween, Hush) is Off now. Nolan sacrificed a Knight for the Bishop. A 'Two Face' for 'The Joker'.

Their will be a third batman,but the real question is :if their will be a fourth?..muhaaa I want 6 batman(nolan) films..and use all the main villains at a time…tell all the story,but only if the TDK actors are kept!…Not to make a third Batman movie,it means you don't like the franchise…by the way ,frank…get a f… life!

If The Riddler is in the third movie, he can be NOTHING like the Joker, which means he has to be in total control of his own mental faculties, brilliant with riddles, hating media attention and wanting to AVOID Batman. His deep-seated need to tell the truth via complex riddles is what betrays him and allows Batman to catch up with him. It wouldn't even bother me if we didn't actually see The Riddler through the first 3/4 of the movie. Perhaps he's a world class computer hacker/pirate.

I personally would like to see Catwoman because she would inject some much-needed fun to the tone of the third film. But… she ISN'T supernatural, she's only tormented as ordinary Selina Kyle, she isn't a psycho, and she DOESN'T kill except when there's no other choice. She has to have fun while in the Cat costume.

I've even read a convincing argument for letting The Penguin into the third movie – he runs a legitimate nightclub as a front for criminal activities. This older gentleman of crime doesn't catch Batman's attention until he tries to fill the void left behind in the underworld power structure. He could be a pre-established mob Don that has long been looking to take all power for himself. Dapper style, pointed nose and cigarette holder are okay; trick umbrellas, bird-themed gadgets, and flipper hands ARE NOT!

Might be cool to see a live-action Deadshot, perhaps as a member of GCPD Swat tasked with hunting Batman (officer Floyd Lawton).

And I disagree with Richard's black/white assessment of the potential tone of the third film. Nolan & Company should make this film without worrying about the success of the second film. It needs to be different in tone, mood, plot thread, and pacing than BB or TDK.

Even in the comics, The Joker has always held a special place in the DC universe (he's the one mere mortal that can terrify super-powered villains as well as heroes) so trying to top him – especially THAT incarnation – in the third film is just dumb. No other villain in the Gotham rogues gallery gives Batman so much trouble.

And three villains would work if they all operate on different levels (it worked in BB).

Either he or Catwoman could fill the physical villain role, while The Riddler or The Penguin would function as the cerebral villain. Perhaps give Tim Booth's psycho Mr. Zasz a larger part and you have your three villains right there.

Just my Two Cents (one good, one scarred)

@Scotty:

Scotty, great comments!

As far as the Riddler is concerned, consider that there are many types of mental illness; the Riddler can still be "on the edge" and yet very different from the Joker.

Catwoman would be great- depending on who played her and with what slant. Personally, I'd really like to see Angelina Jolee cast, but there are others who could be great, I"m sure. She has both the respectability and slightly "outlandish" dimensions nailed. I think the black former prostitute angle Frank Miller penned in _Year One_ is out.

You nailed the Penguin; absolutely nothing to add.

I don't know that Deadshot could work as a cop. That would be a stretch. Nolan has seemed to commit to boiling down characters to their essentials, as it were. Without Deadshot having the assassin angle, I not sure where he'd be.

Enlarging Zasz's role would be great, but then you might be able to do without the Riddler.

I think you are completely correct in assuming three levels for the crime element: this is what made BB "work" (and the ignorance of which was one of the many things that killed anything Schumacher tried to pass off as an attempt at a Batman movie).

Heath's Joker will never be beat. Period. (Which means we will never see a Harley Quinn). Best to break new ground.

Great post, sir.

@Scotty: That was a nice point !

Except perhaps Deadshot. He HAS to be an assassin.

As for screen presence, we did not even see Batman in BB for a whole hour and yet we all liked it.
So Yes, the Riddler would do good to stay inconspicious for about the major part of a movie if he is the main villain.

And yes, I should agree with you and 'outland' both about mulitiple villains. Infact ANY number of villains would work (with time permitting of course) as long as the work on different levels and layers and each work in a different MO and personality.

Talking of Catwoman, I have fallen in Love with her forever from the novel 'Hush(2002)'. The first time she shows her face in 'Hush' was when I was blown away. THAT is the Catwoman I would like to see portrayed on-screen along with the major event that occured between her and The Bat NEAR (not AT) the end of 'Hush'.

While I feel romantic for Catwoman, I reserve lusty feelings for Harley Quinn, specifically from the novel 'Mad Love(1994)'. THERE lies our true Harley Quinn. But no 'puddin' (Harley's Joker) means no 'Harley Quinn'. I hope they bring here 'Mistah J' back for her.

Mr. Zasz could be great in the Nolaniverse if they portray him like 'Arkham Asylum – The Last Arkham'.

Penguin also is a nice prospect.

I am thinking the nasty ugly Black Mask.

If someone would have told you after the release of Batman Begins that Heath Ledger will come in dark knight, and knock your socks off in TDK as joker, you wouldn't believe it… i know i won;t… so i mean to say that there can be more accomplished actor like jhonny depp filling his shoes as joker, or better yet as an all new villan (riddler may be) but it should be the one that makes batman vulnerable… the beauty of TDK was that the batman was very vulnerable to agansit the joker, in a super hero movie that is an accomplishment as u already know as a viewer that our so called hero will prevail… i didn;t got that feeling in TDK and that is a great accomplishment… i want johnny depp or someone more accomplished to appear as a villan to retain that feeling…. in batman 3

While it is sometimes okay to want to go out on top, I'm all for a director trying to meet the challange of topping a great work. And although this was an incredible film, Batman does not begin and end with Joker. Other characters can provide great storylines. And Joker does not have to begin and end Heath Ledger. "Begins" was a mishmash of "Year One", "Man Who Falls" and "Long Halloween". "Dark Knight" was based on ""Man Who Laughts", "Killing Joke". There are many more stories to tell, and I have faith in Nolan to do it right the next time just like I had the faith that he would do it right last time.

Many of the villains in Batman's rogues gallery could easy stand in Nolan's Gotham. And I think – in time – someone else could take on the Joker mantle.

the only way to top such a great villain and storyline is by doing something completely amazing …

they could completely adapt a graphic novel into a movie; i would love to see HUSH done, that would be pretty awesome, because it has a list of villains that we all know: poison ivy, catwoman, the riddler, that mud character (two-face, but he's dead and the joker too) but it also throws in the villain Hush and a new friend for Bruce Wayne. Bruce is getting a bit lonely – he only has alfred and lucian. they can just get rid of the robin part of this story.

I think Batman 3 is completely, absolutely necessary to complete the arc. Wrap it up with a trilogy. Yes, most 3's blow, but this is Christopher Nolan – not Sam Raimi. The Spiderman films, I would argue, have always been decidedly lackluster. Batman on the other hand is a different story entirely. Begins was good and The Dark Knight was incredible. I have every faith in Nolan to deliver a final masterpiece. DK's closure, whilst wonderfully compact, yet ever-so-slightly open, is dark; it is pure darkness, both for Batman and Gotham. The Joker may be locked securely in Arkham but Gotham remains broken. It is a city riddled with fear, mistrust and corruption. The Gotham at the end of DK is NOT the Gotham City Bruce Wayne set out resurrect and I feel, ultimately, that needs closure. Gotham must be saved.

Batman 3 should be about the fusion of 'freak' and 'gangster'. The Mob (Falcone, Maroni, Gambol) and the Freaks (Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face) have always existed as separate entities and I think it is time they became one – it represents the ultimate response to the presence of a man who dresses up as a bat and wages war on the criminal underworld. Picture a war between the opposing factions across Gotham, igniting conflict in all corners of the city. Control over Gotham has never been so divided as it is at the end of DK. I think Falcone's quote in The Long Halloween sums it up perfectly: "I'll burn it all down before I let a freak have it."

Secondly, we have yet to have a legitimate villain. With the city officials now against Batman I think it would be the perfect time to introduce the likes of Rupert Thorne or the Penguin – villains with political ambitions that represent a new kind of threat to the future of Gotham. Pursuing criminals is one thing; resisting those in power is another.

Basically, I think Batman 3 could be incredible.

I love Heath Ledger's performance and we all know Hollywood loves money. So, that being said….. Not in movie #3 but I would expect a return of the Joker along with Harley Quinn. You can throw Riddler and Catwoman in part 3 and screw that up if you want. Heck, throw in the Penquin if you must but the Joker will return.
Heath Ledger would have wanted him to go on. Nolan won't be around when it happens but as long as Schumaker and Burton stay away that will be fine with me.
Heck, I think it's a shame Raimi is directing Spidey 4 because he actually ruined my favorite comic book hero and I hope he falls face first in the mud and everybody laughs at him. Hhahahhahahaahaha! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

@Sydney:

The coin didn't fall with Harvey. It landed right after he tossed it in the air and Batman came in and tackled him over the side (with Gordon's kid). After a cut shot to them hanging there…there's a quick shot of the coin landing where Harvey had just been. And you're right…the living side did land face up. However, Harvey had already flipped the coin for himself. But here you may find a way to support your theory. Because he flipped the coin for himself, and it landed up for his case (the last shot of the coin landing on the ground was the fate of Gordon's kid…who subsequently did live when it landed "live side" up), so we could interpret that as…he lived. However, there are SO MANY flaws in this theory unfortunately. 1) They have a funeral for Harvey. If he shows up alive…then you've got corruption in the police force and DA's office all over again. 2) If he lives, well, he's not like Batman wearing a mask hiding his identity. People know it's Harvey Dent and then everything Batman did to save his reputation would be for not and Gotham would be back to square one. If they make a 3rd movie, then it can't really go backward that easy. 3) Harvey Dent/Two-Face is just two flawed to cover-up, which may play into the whole plot of the 3rd movie (without him actually being in it). The Joker is alive (even if the actor isn't) and can identify Two-Face as Harvey Dent the maniac. Of course, no one is going to believe him. But what about Ramirez? She lived and Two-Face laid her out big time. But she's not dead. Couldn't she tell the truth about his "white knight" status? Of course, who would believe her as the mob owns her.

There is so much to discuss here. I just think that with Heath Ledger's death, the death of Harvey Dent the character, and Batman now truly being the Dark Knight, the story HAS to go into an unforeseen direction by even the most hardcore Batman fans. I don't think anyone truly anticipated the brilliance of the role of the Joker in this movie. His non-plan of creating chaos and terrorizing Gotham couldn't possibly be predicted by fans. At least, that's my opinion. I think with the idea of Batman being the Dark Knight, making himself responsible now for the death of Gotham's only true hero (Harvey Dent) will have to go into even darker, more challenging waters that again, will blow us away.

That is…if they make another. If they do, it better be Nolan telling the story. Otherwise, people better not bother. Let's hope if it is made, it's done right, huh?

Like your ideas on the possibilities…just wanted to throw in my two cents to something you said that jumped out at me.

I believe a really good 3rd movie could be made. First, I would make the villain a good guy that hates batman for some personal reason. They both fight eachother while both fighting another minor character that is really bad. The side plot would be Batman losing it, and giving up, and eventualy dieing at the end of the film.

I still want someone's thoughts of having the flying batmobile in Batman 3 just like 1989's Batman did.
first the car, then the motorcycle then the flying bat machine. I'd like someone's opinion. reply please

So I just got Loeb and Sale's Batman: Dark Victory for Christmas, and I now believe they can make a third movie that is quality. The main difficulty is always "how do you follow that? how do you raise the stakes over that?" The answer is that Nolan can't raise the stakes. It can't get more epic than TDK. I think trying to be more epic is what has doomed super-hero sequels in the past (Xmen 3 was so epic I couldn't even figure out who the characters were).

It can't get bigger, but it can get more personal. Batman is now alone. Batman has always drawn people to himself, despite his loner ways. In the comics he has Robin. Alfred. Lucius. Gordon. Harvey. Sometimes Catwoman. Batman is a team, and Batman draws copies and imitators, which was touched on in TDK. What will his imitators look like now that they're imitating a known murderer? That's where the next villain comes in. I'm thinking Catwoman (and a guy called the Reaper, but he's lesser known) fits into the themes of the wrong kind of inspiration, Batman's pain over Rachel's death, his loneliness.

And as far as redemption goes, There is a scene near the end of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns in which Gotham descends into utter chaos, and Batman must rally the imitators he has shunned into an army to keep the city from tearing itself apart. He's a fugitive, but the commissioner says he's "too big" to go after now. Batman truly moves beyond man into legend. That's the ending this series needs, I think, and I hope the Nolans think of a way to make it work.

I like how that sign says "Sweet Home Chicago" in that Joker pic lol.

@NO U: Good catch! I didn't notice that before.

Re: Reason #9 "You Can't Top the Joker" – I completely agree and I think the awful threequel curse arises from the fact that writers and audiences can't handle a film that *doesn't* top the previous one. But it doesn't have to. A third movie in any franchise can be good – even great – without having more all-out action/bad ass villains/story hype. What makes a good third film is the story and how it grows organically out of the previous two movies.

Just take stock of all the bad three parts in a film and see what they have in common. They abandon the complex story thread and character development in lieu of more explosions, more gadgets, more fights. Take X-men 3 as Exhibit A. It followed the highly complicated and intriguing character-driven film X-men 2. And then proceeded to jettison all of that potential for a knockdown street brawl meant to highlight the various mutants' powers. In fact, the Iceman/Pyro duel at the end of the movie is representative of the film as a whole – good guys face bad guys, both are at a standstill, good guys figure out how to beat bad guys, bad guys lose (without actually dying, so as to keep the option open for a fourth film).

X-men 3 suffered from the same temptation that most franchises succumb to – the tendency to market the next story as 'their greatest adventure yet' or 'the biggest challenge they've ever faced' or 'this bad guy is really *really* bad ass.' By trying to constantly up the ante the story gets lost in the shuffle. And without solid narrative a movie – especially a comic book adaptation – is just a series of special effects and fights.

So if Batman 3 is made, I'm not worried about who the villain will be. In fact, I hope it will be rather low-key. Batman doesn't need an enemy as challenging or as intense as Ledger's Joker for the movie to be great. Personally, I would like to see a film where Batman takes on crime rings without there even being a major villain. Even if they don't take this tack, however, the film can still be good so long as it is not trying to compete with the previous film. Another Batman film that explores more of the Batman mythos will be plenty entertaining.

I think the movie should be called "guardian of Gotham" and it should be about the riddler coming in Gotham and destroying gotham while batman tries to save gotham while not being caught and put in jail. The other villans are bane who escapes jail from an explosion caused by the riddler that formed a hole in his cell. The riddler then pursuades him to catch the batman for him because if batman is gone for good, he could be out of jail for life. Later though he gets sent to arkham by batman. The third vilian is catwomen who helps the riddler capture batman in the end of the film because the riddler told her that he will kill Bruce Wayne if she didn't. At the end of the film she dies though by the riddler. So that's what I think the third film should be like. :)

@Sydney:

Two things, the coin was being flipped for Gordon's son. I'd like to believe that it meant Harvey is alive, and I'm not saying he isn't, but the flip was for the son who lived.

And I'm not sure if I'm the same as most fans in this regard, but I won't ask Nolan to make a better movie for the third installment. All I will ask of him is that he does it, and that it is at least as good as Batman Begins. I hope this will be true of most fans, and I hope that will convince him to do it. As you will notice, most of those 'third installment issues' where from a change in director, and I think if Nolan sticks with it, it will still be great and not fall into any 'curse'. (My one qualm is that I actually like Blade Trinity much better than the second one, so I don't think it falls into the 'curse' either.)

FWIW, the leaked screenplay definitely says that Harvey is "dead, his neck broken". Eckhart has also gone on record as saying that he is not to be in the third movie.

But I agree with you Krys: the third need not be better (or at least, not along the same lines). Nolan can do a really solid job without feeling that it challenge the second one, which was admittedly through the roof. But there may be a few actors who will welcome the challenge of being more of a threat than Ledger's Joker, albeit in another direction.

I do wonder if (since it's been admitted that Ledger was to be in the third movie) we had a hint about what was in store when Alfred observed that "some men just want to watch the world burn".

@Krys:
well with nolan nothing can ever be as bad as spiderman 3. i love sam raimi for his evil dead series, but even a cool director can make mistakes. even if batman 3 is horrendous you have to admit that nolan still has a pretty good track record. yeah i didnt really like blade 3 but only because it seemed tacked on to the other two, the first one being phenominal and the second one was a little sub-par (i hate guillermo del toro, no matter what "visual stunning masterpiece" he makes. i think hes repetitive and every one of his movies follows the same themes and designs (loosly of course). Nolan on the other hand goes from one school of thought to the next and always in the gray areas where we question our morals. dark knight summed up what every one of his movies generally stated. just read any of the joker's rants. i think that may actually be one of the reasons why i didnt like dark knight.. the joker was crazy but he wasnt completely insane. just read The Killing Joke. Alan moore shows us insane. Alan moore is insane… but we still love him. the joker that i know, of the comic books and graphic novels is far more insane than that of the movies. in fact he is beyond insane. Batman: Arkham Asylum does an excellent explanation of the joker's mentality stating that he has transcended insanity. The joker of the movies kills to prove a point. the joker of the comics kills just to kill. he murders 200 people at a time not to show that people will eventually (given the right circumstances) go bad. The Long Halloween shows that he was willing to kill the entire city of gotham just to get rid of the holiday killer.
sorry about the rant.. i just really think nolan could have used the joker to the extent of his abilities. regardless of everything i think that it still was an amazing movie…batman 3 should take a different direction seeing how B.B. to DK didnt really match up as Spiderman to Spiderman 2 did sequel wise. each can be viewed independent of eachother since they both have different themes and structures. the third one can go in a completely different direction and that would be a-ok in my book.

that was the biggest piece of shit i have ever read. So the whole world will collapse if the third one comes out. wow you are so narrow minded and dumb if you think that. jim carrey was awesome in batman forever.

Don't be such a jackass. Yes there WILL DEFINATELY be a 3rd Batman because the last did so well. It might suck balls, but the studio will DEFINATELY give the script they get the greenlight. The FIRST script if it features the Joker.

As for viral site being annoying, don't be dumb, you have to VISIT the site to even see it, and if you're not interested in it then you don't HAVE to visit, so it's more likely that YOU are annoying.

There is nothing wrong with Raimi. He's more of a director than he is a writer (Nolan can't direct a fight scene for $h!t) but that doesn't mean anything. The final act of (the mostly crap) Spiderman 3 was AMAZING (no pun intended).

I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest of what is most likely crap.

I like the idea of batman now being the villain in the minds of people. That could open up for several upstanding citizens in gotham to try and bring him in (for their own personal reasons, like the riddler was jealous of bruce wayne). Of the upstanding citizens we have the penguin, the riddler and hush (a childhood friend jealous of bruce wayne). A mix of those three would be rather interesting to see.

The whole plot twist could then be for the upstanding citizens to betray the people of gotham and batman rising to the occation, saving them once more.

Making a third Batman movie would be a mistake since the hype for it would be so high that mostly everyone would be disapointed. What villain could possibly top the Joker? I think it's impossible to make it better than that. They should make a Justice league movie instead.

@Jack: The second film's name was the Dark (K)Night. The third film needs to be the equivalent of the Sunrise.

@JD92: You are dumb, the last batman film with no batcave? Ending the franchise because of one actors admirable performance? The Joker in the comics as i pray you know since you have the balls to talk about the films, is a chameleon. He changes his personality every day which is what makes him so dangerous his lack of predictability. Im not saying recast joker im just saying it would make sense in terms of comic book continuity look at the amazing difference between jim lees joker and alex ross' completely alternate characters. And saying it would be too awesome to make seems like a good reason to make it for me, I love awesome and it is not fatal to me and asa for the threequell curse at least batman forever is better then batman and robin i think we can all agree on that I mean nipples cmon its the batsuit not an s&m costume. And two face could be alive, just in secret.

here's how I see things play out

the first movie showed the beginning of batman : Bruce Wayne creating an unavoidable uncorruptable character, with that he injected fear in Gotham's criminals. They feared him because they didn't understand him and that was what created a new evolution of criminals like the joker, which as the second movie showed, began with some bullets and cash and ended up with all the criminal minds in the city.

the joker did his share and took over, watching the world burn, which made batman look really bad as he was the origin of all this. But this time things changed, as batman experienced something new and unexpected: an interfere with his personal life; the joker managed to kill Rachel, make it look like batman's fault and not only that, but making bruce thinking it's really his fault. at the end Harvey Dent – the real true hero – turns into an enemy and dies at the end. for the city to remain hopeful, batman suggests the whole thing to be his fault; by declaring that, batman is Gotham's enemy.

I know nothing about the third movie but I should say that I'm really waiting for it to come, because the artistic mind, the great plot and the uncredible screenplay planning of the great Christopher Nolan are by a great distance,the best things that contributed not only to the fiction-reality conversions, but to the filmography world. the Dark Knight is very likely to be the greatest movie of all times, I see movies all the time but I could never get over the DK.

@I’m Not Smart At All:

OK first of all everyone needs to relax bc this article (as the author stated) was just something silly that while some reasons are actually legitimate, others are not. Secondly, despite all the "great" reasons being put out there, I cannot truly agree with those who say there should not be another film. While I know all of you were wetting your pants for a 2nd Batman film, none of you really thought it was a good idea bc none of you thought that Nolan could do a better job than Batman Begins, and look how wrong you all were. I want a new Batman film as soon as possible, but I think Nolan has proved to us that he will not venture to create a new film unless it is completely perfect and well worked on. So you guys don't have to worry about it being a piece of shit (even if it doesn't top The Dark Knight). Thirdly, I think that a film dedicated to the struggles Batman will have to deal with by BLATANTLY being the villain to the public could be a really great and interesting film. Remember, this isn't a sequel (at least not in Nolan's eyes) because Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were too very different, very exceptional films. The third film would be another installment, but a completely different one. I personally cannot wait for the details to be released on the new film but I'm happy with waiting as long as possible because I expect nothing but the best from Nolan. And I believe that he will not disappoint. And as for he Raimi reason, Nolan would never ALLOW himself to turn into that, because unlike the Spiderman films, Nolan's Batman series is not blatantly comic bookish or campy.

Also, as for the Harley Quinn theory, I think that it could work without ever really needing the Joker to have screen time. They could refer to him but never really show him. I also think that Johnny Depp being in the film would be a great idea, because it is evident that that man can ACT. However, I think we'll need to see how he and Bale spar on screen in Public Enemies before we can actually ask for that. Finally, I REALLY want Catwoman or AT LEAST Selena Kyle to be in the 3rd one because Bruce is in desperate need of a female companion and not one who doesn't know what the f**k she wants. I mean 2 seconds before Rachel was killed I turned to my friend in the theatre and said, "They really need to kill this character off." I didn't like her when Holmes portrayed her, and I didn't like her when Gyllenhaal portrayed her. As for it being Catwoman I think she'd be best because she brings some fun to Batman's life and because she is a love interest to his one personality while a villain to his other. Frankly, Batman needs to get laid for all he's being doing (especially when he gets no credit for it – saving Harvey and jumping from a VERY TALL building to save Rachel and she still gives him shit for not coming forth as Batman? what a prudish bitch) and I'm a woman no less.

I think the 3rd film should be based but not a direct adaptation of Knightfall, with Bats chasing down all the Arkham inmates and being defeated by Bane (not the crap Batman and Robin Bane but the evil genius Bane). It may be over kill and Azrael would have to be introduced early in the movie but I think it would end Nolans trilogy quite well.

Another option would be to have the black mask and his gang.

But please no Robin

thats all good thinking i especially like the "killing by Awesomness" that made me lol but yea i think i would like to see a third and maybe have jim carrey come back as the Riddler maybe but i still think a third would be nice and knowing Christopher nolans previous work it will be good and not a flop like spiderman 3 BUT people will still obviously slate the 3rd batman (if its made) and i think the majority will be about the villian and how the actor couldnt live up to the joker which is a pitty to not see joker because the joker is kind of the batman he makes batman waht it is but sadly there is no more to tehe joker :( anyway in conclusion i think i would LOVE to see a 3rd batman as i am a huge Christopher nolan/Christian bale/ Batman Fan and i do like the Christian Bale version of the batman some might not but i still think its probably the best batman ive seen but thats off subject i do think a 3rd should happen Possibly a 4th depends i dont know…… :)

i think the riddler has potentional to be a great villian
one day my son was watching the animated batman series and riddler looked as if he was very well done
he talked and acted insane, his gestured and the way he moved also pointed at that too
everything was a game to him he didnt care about who he was affecting he just wanted the thrill of people trying to solve his riddles
for example he had one mans family roped to system of barrels of acid and if he wanted to free them of course he had to solve a riddle under a time limit
yet the riddle seemed obvious and he chose the most sensible anwser which only sped up the timer
and its the kind of insanity that will warrant a great villain
wether or not depp will be up the challenge i dont know

Money talks, and as you stated The Dark Knight made tons of it. Warner Bros. isn't going to shoot down a cash cow so long as they think money will still fall out of it. There are a ton of villains still to use, and more "Artistic directions" to take. Bringing in Robin might be the killer of the series, but it will show a different side of Batman (Thus challenging Christian Bale as an actor to play the same character but introduce new elements) If they want to do it right, and give the 3rd installment a tweak, introducing a good villain such as the Riddler or maybe Mr. Freeze (of course, remaking the characters and staying away from the Batman Forever characters would be key) that hires Bane to kill Batman might be the way to go. First they have to do Bane correctly. Let's face it, Batman Forever had a goofy Bane that was more like a cheap Incredible Hulk (or the Incredible Hulks wimpy kid brother) than the intellectual ultimate fighter assassin with super human strength that he should have been. When Bane pumps the venom into his system making him go from really good to unbelievably awe inspiring awesome, the special effects team would have something new to tackle. More action, less love story, more special effects, and keep the villains fresh and as interesting as Batman himself. Nolan can have an even better movie than The Dark Knight. Maybe wrap it up after that. :)

ok first and foremost heath ledger as brilliant as he was can get replaced just because he killed himself doesnt mean we have to lose joker i think jonny depp would be better as joker anyway secondly the dark knight is no ending and im not going to accept itas one as for nolens bs about there isnt a story i got 1 thing to say how many comics movies and games are there more than enough to get a story from so get off your ass and research nolen and lastly there are a lot of villan that never made it to the

I agree with your #1 reason 100% but I would'nt be that upset if they decided to not do a sequel but as stated already Money Talks and the bigwigs won't let their golden goose come to pass without cashing in their chips.

i think that johnny depp should play the riddler he's great in any role and they should bring the joker back who is better to play the joker than daniel day lewis who admired heath ledger performance in brokeback mountain and dedicated his BAFTA Screen Actors Guild for his performance in there will be blood to heath ledger daniel day lewis would be perfect for the role because he is a method actor he would get in to the role so deep that it would probably be the closes performance to heath ledger IT WOULD BE AWESOME TO SEE THE JOKER BACK ON SCREEN!! or johnny depp could play the joker because he has a dark side in him like in sweeney todd one of the best performance i ever seen! and philip seymour hoffman would be awesome as the penguin he like daniel day lewis or johnny depp can get in to the role he is one of the best actors out there! i also read that seymour hoffman doesnt want to play the penguin but he should reconsider! they should make him a good deal so he would take that role if he still doesnt take the role than i think ray winstone should be the penguin because he his the tough guy look and his performance in king arthur, proposition and departed is some of his best actoring he would be a perfect penguin if the next batman cast has these actors in it who wouldnt want to see it! and with those actors including of couse christian bale still as batman also the director chris nolan this movie would have ocars written all over it!!!!