3rd Batman for Christopher Nolan?

Catwoman.

Nolan did to the story of Batman, what Ed Wood did to movies. He must be the absolutely worst director i have ever seen directing batman. Allthough i love the actors, i hate the plot. Still worth seeing, since it is Heath Ledgers last movie with an amazing preformance, but other than that, it stays with the story as much as Hitler stayed by his promises to Poland aqnd Czhecoslovakia. for the actors, 5 thumbs up, for the plot, story and directing, 2 thumbs down.

Just thought i'd put my two cents in...Dark Knight sucks. Thank you, thats all.

mandatory 4 a 3. Hollywood aint gonna let this golden goose fly away jus yet... after breaking records, they c only profit, what those "fat cats" that they wont get the same boom as its predicessior. Hopefully Nolen says yes with a decent script. i may b otta line here but how bout they use hush? or is it 2 early?

Wouldn't batman be a villain in the next film?? to the publics eye.. Since he is now hated... sounds hard to do a next villian when batman is already a villain to gothams public(suppose to be in the audiences eye too).. batman 3 is probably going to fail.. they kind of fucked the end up in the 2nd movie.. its going to be hard to make a batman 3.. unless they continue the downward spiral story of a fallen hero.. we have to go into the mental state of bruce.. breakdown the batman... it's the only way they can go after the second movie.. the riddler would be the best villain to confuse the bat... make his mind feel like it was struck by lighting.. Plus, batman forever rocked... its so glam.. and the riddler(jim carrey) was so good.. and the awesome ass shot of batman dressing up as the bat.... such classics.... lets see an epic tale(3 movies) of batman.. fuck single movies!!!!!!

Oh and I would love to see them put Talia Al Ghul in the next film as Bruce/Batman's love interest. That could fit with the story whether they resurrect Ra's or not.

When discussing a villain for the 3rd film it is very difficult because every mainstream villain has been used in one way or another. So, in my opinion, to keep up with the tone and themes of the other films the most fitting villains would be Bane, Penguin, the Riddler, Deadshot, or (and just here me out on this one) the return of Ra's Al Ghul. It could be possible due to the fact that Ra's Al Ghul uses the Lazarus Pits and other supernatural methods to sustain long life, but this is just a far fetched idea. What do you guys think?

The ending was closed. Joker is taken out of the corrupt city police jurisdictions so he won't get outta jail again. Two-Face is dead and Batman took the fall and is now percieved as a villainous vigilante whom will be hated by the public, and targeted by police. Just like in some of the comics. And no other villains need to be dealt with, save Scarecrow, but that was kinda closed as well. They can leave his fate up to the fans. The ending was closed.

if they do make a 3rd Batman, which almost has to happen with the completely open ending of TDK, Nolan's gotta do and Bale's gotta do it. Plain and simple

They do know what they are doing. Why do you TDK is so successful calvin.

I hope WARNER BROS. knows what their doing.

Saquin Turok: When making movies, like "American Graffiti" for instance. The original cut was 3hrs long. And that wasn't of just extra takes and bloopers. That'd be an extra 70 minutes of story that was cut out by the studio's request for a reasonable runtime. You can have hours upon hours of footage, but it won't ALL get in the film, hence why on certain films you have at least a dozen lengthy deleted scenes.

"The Dark Knight" filmed from April 4th 2007 through early or mid or late August 2007. Since movies film all the scenes that take place at one location first, then take off elsewheres. And not all director's will do 37 takes of a guy tossing a booklet into the car seat beside them like David Fincher would & did in "Zodiac" which therefore cuts down the amount of time spent at each location. My guess is that the truck/batpod chase scene was the most costly and lengthy part of the movie, simply cuz of the amount of explosives and effects. Plus different camera angles and set-ups.

Even the original "Saw" was a lot longer, but cut for a reasonable runtime. You'll find that's true with several movies. OR, projects are done consecutively, such as when production wrapped on "No Country For Old Men" in 2006, the Coens began doing the pre-production for "Burn After Reading" and filmed it probably last summer, in June maybe, which would be a month after "No Country..." premeired at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2007 in France, yet it was held from conventional theatres for another 6 months.

Like I said FUCK pypebomb.

i agree with pypebomb.....jk jus wanted 2 c how hed react to positive feedbaback on his comment, hopefully i didnt break his concentration between his strokes. hahaha i jus hope if Bale does agree to a 3, he loses the damn cookie monster voice as batman

lol pype. what a bitch.

Ignore Pypebomb too. He only does that 'cos he seems to get a kick out of the bad reactions. It must be sad and lonely being him, not that I'll be loosing any sleep over that.

I meant all of Bale's film over that time period, not just Batman. And Batman only took 4-5 months to film? Quick for such a lengthy film. I think the calibre of the actors no doubt had an impact on that. With all those films, plus the promotion push with the differing worldwide release dates (and award ceremonies for the good films), it can be quite a lot of work. Saying that, superstar actors have far more free time than us mere mortals, and make more money than I'll ever see.

Agreed slysnide. However, like you said the marketing campaign and etc. Bale will be booked with that and filming, and he's goin to do three of these movies, i think it will at least be a good 2 and a half years to three and a half years, including vacations which he deserves, till the third Batman installment comes out.

It doesn't really matter as long as it happens, and the stars are all cast good, with Nolan. The only thing that is junk is that it won't make as much money as the second film. =(

Well, "TDK" only took 4-5 months to film, so it wouln't be 6-7 years of work, just 1yr or 15 months worth of work.

Like when actors in a series say that they've been living with a character for several years, truth be told, they've only been living with them for the months they spent filming that series all added up to total roughly 2 years or so. Not much more, and sometimes a lot less.

And the official word is that "Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins" is part 1 of a trilogy, otherwise the sub-title wouldn't be included, and it'd just be called "Terminator Salvation." Usually titles like the one they're going with make viewers think that the film will be one of those direct-to-video types no matter how good the quality & content is.

Shut the fuck up Pype... All you do is talk shit

Fuck this asshole under me.

it will suck cock...you can count on that.

Is bale in all 3 of those films? Even given the fact that sequels in a franchise come out roughly every 3 years, that's a lot of films he'll be doing over what, 6-7 years? The main stars also actively promote the films near to release times too, so I think he deserves that long vacation.

That he is. Plus, there are supposed to be 3 Terminator films, so Bale's schedule may be a bit full at the moment.

If, as expected, a 3rd is done, I wouldn't expect a release date until summer 2011, maybe even 2012. I assume Bale also worked on Terminator:Salvation straight after TDK too. A busy boy indeed. I think Bale's a must for Nolan to do a third instalment.

For whatever reason, several sites pitted Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin & Johnny Depp as the Riddler in Batman 3 as of July 31st, 2008. Why? I don't know. But it sounds like crap. Plus, Depp's schedule is pretty full for a while now.

As for Chris, he'll be vacationing for a couple months perhaps. Cuz after "Begins" was released, he went into doing "Prestige" which was released exactly 16 months later. Then he went into pre-pro for "TDK" which started filming on April 4th, 2007 that left him pretty much NO vacation time between "Prestige" & "TDK" except for a couple days or so. Maybe a week.

Whether or not he returns for a third film IMMEDIATELY will also depend on whether or not he'll undertake another film project BEFORE even writing the script for a third film, assuming of course that he intends to, with the help of Goyer too of course.

Either way, he's got plenty of time to think about it.

gotta agree with turok on this one. and chad are you serious? "some lines you dont cross"? wow, i talked shit to you cuz your an emotional lil girl. lol cant talk shit on a movie website. JESUS CHRIST man grow some balls and stop whining already

I've got to say it, Ledger's death did whip the public up into a frenzy and wanting to pay tributes. This current franchise is a greatly anticipated one, but the third movie won't generate as much excitement as TDK. Unless Bale dies, God forbid.

not sure bringing the Joker back will be a good idea, seeing as Ledger made the role a legend c ing it played by someone else will turn off alot of moviegoers.While the idea of Batman as a vigilante as turok said sounds like a cool idea.... i jus dont c it making the same impact as tdk. an that will also turn alot of people off.

riddler be the main. and joker will be in either one scene or talked about.