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

But please no Robin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.