Mr. Cinema

I'm sure the 3rd film will be around the 150 minute mark just like TDK. That's plenty of time to establish 2 villains.

RagingBull80

I'd love to see Sam Rockwell in this somewhere...

My Other Self

I've seen enough Catwoman. I'd like a more interesting villain from Batman's rogue gallery. If Nolan can make Ra's Al-Ghoul as interesting as Liam Neeson was in Begins then anything is possible.

I just think we've seen enough of her. I'd like someone obscure for Nolan to flesh out.

Artman

Yeah, if he's going for that epic style of film, might as well. TDK had essentially 4 villains - 1 scene with scarecrow, joker, origin for two face, and Meroni - which may have at one point been written as the penguin. I liked seeing the villains interacting with each other...fun stuff.

Paul_SD

I'll be interested to see how he gets the character out of the corner he painted him into at the end of TDK.
Lest anyone forget, Batman, from the point of view of 99.999% of the population of Gotham is now a murderer. And not just a killer of mob bosses, and (corrupt) cops, but someone who offed an enormously high profile, and popular member of the judicial/law enforcement establishment.

I wonder if the cops will still be sitting around, collectively shrugging their shoulders and picking their asses like they did in TDK? I wonder if there will be any political fallout for Gordon since was endorsing the eventual assassin of the D.A. and giving him carte blanche at crime scenes and letting him interrogate, as well as beat up, suspects already in police custody. I would assume in a huge city like that, that there would be a lot of people gunning for Gordons job title, people both sincere and corrupt.
Even members from the establishment that are straight and respected Gordon previously will have to question whether Gordon deserves that level of authority now.

I actually respect Nolan for addressing the questions that he did (i.e. how could Batman function if he was a well known 'good guy')- but I won't cut him any slack if he doesn't follow through and show the unpleasant fallout from these decisions- otherwise they end up being meaningless posturing.

To my eyes, this is the major conflict that the continued story demands be addressed. The choice of which marquee villains we see next is almost immaterial compared to that.

In light of that though, one way they could go is introducing Selina Kyle as someone involved in corporate espionage- spying on Wayne Ent. or as a high society, sophisticated cat burglar. Either way would allow the story to logically dial down Batmans profile, as he detects and pursues (in and out of costume) a sneaky, slippery, but non lethal character.
If he catches her by the end of the second act, there would be an opportunity for him to then enlist her in helping bring down the primary villain.

That way you would be able to make the romantic foil more organic to the overall story. You could probably work in Talia in place of Selina with a little re-jiggering, but I think given the nature and natural talents of Selina, she would be more of an asset in terms of story needs.

DVD Josh

Predictably - he redeems himself with a high profile life-saving or capture, and the truth comes out that Dent was insane. Resolved within the first 30 mins. of the movie.

Paul_SD

Wouldn't be surprised if that is actually the route Nolan tries to take.
However

Just imagine if there were a flamboyant vigilante/terrorist in this country right now, regularly employing high tech weaponry, answerable and accountable to no one, that seemed to have a vendetta against, let's say drug cartels.
He goes around the border towns, blowing shit up and bringing a few big fish in -for the corrupt cops, and compromised judicial system, in those border towns to process.

Would public opinion be overwhelmingly in his favor? Or would there more likely be a largely cynical % that question his motives and who he is really serving? You get a few big fish out of the way, and that conveniently makes room for new predators to move in.

I don't doubt there would be a simple minded law & order contingent cheering him on and taking everything at face value (and being really envious of all the fire power he brandishes). But I would expect you would also have a lot of highly educated people, as well as city, state, and federal officials who would be looking for and expecting ulterior motivations.

Now, suppose we get a news flash that this figure is now accused of killing off one of the few seemingly straight shooting people in the judicial system that had been putting away alot of these cartel heads- how would that look?
Does he still look like someone without insidious motivations?

Would one heroic act suddenly wipe that impression away? Or would people now be inclined to question everything that is associated with this character?
Would people suddenly go "awwww. I guess he's a really good guy after all- stop harrassing him" if Joran Van Der Sloot took advantage of an opportunity to save a kid from burning building? Or would they more likely think 'the little bastard probably contrived the whole event with a lawyer to buy himself some good press'?

Or take it the other way- suppose the population is shown buying an immediate act of heroism/self sacrifice and/or the truth somehow comes out about Dent early in the first act of the film and we see a complete re-set of his public persona and ability to interact with the GCPD. Wouldn't that kind of imply that the grand themes that TDK so pretentiously closed out with, were ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary? The first act of this film would essentially be saying "remember all those things we made such a big deal about in the last film? Just ignore them. They weren't important after all."

If Nolan chooses to hit the re-set button early on, rather than playing out the implications and repercussions of the creative decisions he made last time, that would be...unfortunate.

toddly6666

The third film in the Chris Nolan Batman trilogy should finish off with the obvious: Clayface.

Clayface is the only way to finish these films.

Clayface is the villain that will make everyone forget about Ledger's Joker, because Clayface is better than the Joker.

Clayface.

RagingBull80

I never thought Batman was meant to take the fall for Dent, I took it to mean that he was taking the fall for Dent's victims.

Paul_SD

Even if that were the case, one of Dents victims was a cop.
He was never accused, charged with or convicted of being on the take, so as far as the man in the street of this movie universe is concerned, the cop was one of the good guys. And Batman is now a cop killer.

I don't see how the film can get away from the implication that Batman is assumed to be responsible for Dents demise, when the police are now taking him to be a cop killer and he is fleeing the scene of Dents, highly suspect, death.

Even if Gordon covers for him in this instance, Gordon himself should be coming under intense suspicion for his past association with this cop killer. If this were operating on anything close to a real level, Gordon would have a lot of 'splaining to do.

RagingBull80

People in Gotham are well aware that the city is very corrupt and that a lot of the police are dishonest. If I were living in Gotham I would just assume that Batman went after a corrupt cop that did some bad shit. Batman's record so far has been pretty clean, short from property damage. I'm sure that the news of Dent's disfigurement/death and the death of his fiancée is going to become common knowledge to the people of the city. I don't think that people are going to have a hard time forgiving Batman for going after the Joker/other people involved in the death of the beloved D.A..

Paul_SD

You know Batman is a good guy and his motives are pure because for your lifetime you've known him as a superhero across a multitude of media.

I'm looking at the situation from the perspective of someone in the films universe.

Also, if you've lived your life in a place where 'authority' can't be trusted, I think that would condition you to be completely cynical and question everyone's motivation (which is why I can't swallow the boat sequence in TDK).

A guy that hides behind a mask and doesn't need to answer to anyone for anything he does- that's someone you would put your faith and trust in? I don't see that as a logical or believable reaction to the events in this films universe.

Again, a population aware of systemic corruption, I would expect is more likely NOT to take these events at face value. It wouldn't take a whole lot to imagine that Joker and Batman are actually working in concert. The easiest way to gain a marks confidence is prove you have his best interest at heart- you do that by exposing/bringing to justice someone else out to do him harm. It's an old game.

This universe has no real experience with this character outside of a few murky events that really make little to no sense unless you have an omniscient point of view- which would be far from the case for the average man in the street.

RagingBull80

Looking at it as an intelligent member of Gorham’s society I would feel he was doing a good thing. Regardless of whether that thing he was doing was lawful or not. Between the events of Begins and Dark Knight I think Batman has proven that he is out after the bad guys that the cops won't touch. I totally agree that it would be hard to trust anything or anyone in a city like Gotham but I think that I could put my faith in a person that was working outside of the police. Sure he's a vigilante but sometimes things need to be taken care of outside the law. I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone in the city not as a person that's been aware of Batman his entire life.

Although the city is completely corrupt I think that I would have believed in Harvey Dent as much as I would in any politician. As a citizen I would have sincerely believed that he was trying to do good things for the city. Now when it comes to his death I would totally believe that there was more behind it and that there was some sort of cover-up. I would have a hard time not believing that the GCPD was behind it. I just don’t believe that I would think that Batman was behind it. If anything, Dent was trying to do what Batman was doing but within the constraints of the law.

Supermallet

Paul, I'm with you. The issue of how Batman operates without public support and without police support should be the central conflict of the film. The villain situation will be something he handles, of course, but he'll have to go it alone, with only Alfred to help. And I do think there should be a plotline about Gordon's job being in danger because of his association with Batman. Anything less than that would be to totally ignore the events of TDK, and it isn't something that should be resolved within 30 minutes.

RagingBull80

I totally agree that that should be the bulk of the third film. I was just making the argument that I don't believe everyone in Gotham will be against Batman now. The police should absolutely be after him. It's really what's going to be the best for the story. I love the idea of having a villain that doesn't have a huge part and is only a small part of the conflict in the film. I also love the idea of a subplot involving Gordon's job being in jeopardy and him being under extreme scrutiny.

harrydoyle

I think that Batman going it alone would be very cool, too. But I think we've seen from Nolan that there are going to be 2 villians, so I'd expect a match for Batman while he's fighting the lack of support, personally. I think that could be great though and he'd still be taking on 2 villians.

Solid Snake

this...

Supermallet

I still think The Riddler as a Seven-style serial killer would be interesting. He's leaving these clues, the regular detectives can't figure it out. Gordon's feeding info to Batman, who, along with Alfred, is trying to solve the riddles, and someone with an axe to grind discovers Gordon's still in contact with Batman. Now you've got your main villain, Batman working clandestinely, Gordon under scrutiny, and all you have to do is throw in Selina Kyle as a potential love interest and second villain and you've got yourself a stew going.

RocShemp

Given Nolan insists this is to serve as an ending to the arc he began in BB, I think the League of Shadows should resurface and use a Jean-Paul Valley type character to manipulate Batman's tarnished reputation to their ends. After all, there's a whole mess of them still out there that know Bruce is Batman and have a definite axe to grind.

RagingBull80

I think everything said here would make a great Batman film except for the love interest thing. Leave Catwoman out of it. I agree 100% with the rest though. We get to see Batman playing more of a detective on the run and Gordon's struggle. I think that all of that mixed with Bruce still mourning the loss of Rachel should make a sufficient follow-up/conclusion and an all around excellent film.

Yavin

Joseph Gordon-Levitt may not be taking on the role of the Joker in the next film, but apparently, he may be playing the Riddler!

Artman

Yeah, but given the already male heavy cast... we need some female character in there somewhere. She might as well serve several purposes and be a villain.

Hokeyboy

No we don't.

fumanstan

Sounds good to me.

Solid Snake

nice.....I knew it was too weird to just have JGL in one Nolan film, IF this is true that is. Nolan likes to reuse his actors (C'MON, NOLAN! Get Guy Pearce another role!).