Batman Begins Part III (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

I think the thing that is initially confusing with Harvey is that Dent "dies" as soon as he's burned. Add to that the fact that Gordon "dies" in TDK and yet is still kicking by the end of the film, as well as Maroni surviving quite easily after falling from a similar height, and you have the possibility of ambiguity.

After seeing the film I honestly wasn't sure he was dead. It may have been due to some of these factors combined with the expectation going in that TDK was setting up Two-Face for the next film. Additionally, it was nearly 3am when that scene occurred.

In any case, it definitely makes the most sense for him to be dead, at least thematically. But I understand how many may be confused as to his fate.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I think Harvey is dead.

For the third film, maybe bring back Ra's and introduce Talia. I don't know how the Riddler would work; Catwoman is a possibility.

I honestly don't know how they'll top TDK.

 

[James T]

The memorial service was indeed for Harvey Dent and all of his memories, but Two-Face could be locked up in Arkham where only a select few know of his existance, including a Dr. Harley Quinn.

I can't see Harley being the big bad. Maybe in a smaller villian role like Scarecrow in Begins.

Villians, I'd like to see Black Mask or Bane. Either would fit in the mob world that Nolan built.

And they don't need to recast the Joker. Scarecrow was shown very briefly in The Dark Knight, and for the majority of the scene, it could have been anyone under the mask. Lots of shadows and play with lights can give a quick glimpse of Joker in Arkham

 

[DavidPla]

Harley only works with Joker by her side. On her own, she's WAY at the bottom of the spectrum. Much below Catwoman in terms of female villains so I would much rather see Catwoman and she would make a great new love interest for Batman.

 

[Ray H]

I'm sure they'll all bring their A-game, but I don't know if they can top TDK. It may be a great movie, but I don't know if it'll have the same hype. This installment featured the Joker, Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and had the matter of Ledger's untimely death and the hype surrounding his performance as well.

The next film won't have the Joker or Heath Ledger. Probably not Two-Face. Whatever villain they choose, I see it being a bit more lightweight in comparison. TDK had a huge, epic scope. It was a juggernaut. I see the next one as much more personal - Bruce Wayne/Batman finding himself. Hell, at the moment I can't even see a comic book villain in it.

But I'm sure the next one will be just as strong thematically and I expect great things regardless.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Two-Face being alive might be wishful thinking on my part. You can read it either way, though the film suggests he is gone. But it is not adamant about it.

I agree with Ray. I don't know if they CAN top TDK, or even equal it. I'd be satisfied with just doing it justice. It's impossible to top Joker and Two-Face for villains.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Also, I wonder what the tone of a third film would be. TDK is so dark and emotionally harrowing. Would Nolan continue in this vein, or would he go in a more adventure oriented direction? It will be interesting to see. As long as they don't bring in a Schumacher clone to "lighten up" the franchise!

 

[Ryan Peddle]

Title - Gotham: The Hunt for Batman

As for recasting the Joker, my heart says no, but my brain says yes, because I think another stellar actor could pull it off. Think Daniel Day Lewis (though I doubt he would).

As for Villans, anybody BUT the Penguin and Catwoman. To cartoony and make me feel like the series is headed right back to where the first series went. Pleas no more "Ice to see you".

 

[Paul_Scott]

WB execs may want the next film to be lighter in tone, but I don't see how that is possible without fast forwarding the time frame a year or so.
This whole crusade and mindset was propelled from the loss of his parents and having his immediate vengence frustrated. Well, just look at all he has lost now. The hit to his world isn't just emotional (which would be dispiriting enough) but also logistical. Even if he is burning to continue to operate, he is hampered in ways great and small now (no car, no access to uncontaminated crime scenes, no freedom of movement in the line of sight of the police, etc).
I do hope Nolan doesn't pull a Raimi and defer to the money handlers on the size and scope of the next one. If he has a sound way to deliver the same size or greater spectacle, fine. But I would be A-OK with a drastically dialed down follow up that was long on character and intigue, and short on pyrotechnic spectacle.
It's also worth realizing that the first film was an adventure movie with some sci-fi trappings and the second film was an action movie by way of a crime suspense thriller. The genres he hasn't really dabbled with yet are mystery and horror...both of which provide a breathable atmosphere for this property.

some will say we already had horror with Two-face, but I would counter that horror wasn't the main thrust, just a surface aspect of one of the visual elements.
Given that, there's room for a character like Hugo Strange.

I'm very interested to see how Bruce deals with losing a peer, friend, and romantic object and whether the previous traumas has made him colder now or more vulnerable.
That's why I suggested the abyss analogy earlier. Falling into the abyss means that he is on the path to becoming the embittered facist seen in Kingdom Come. Stepping away means something else. Either direction could still yield more ripping yarns, just as long as the movement to either direction feels natural and organic, not forced upon him by the dictates of the marketplace.

 

[BrettGallman]

How about "The Caped Crusader" as a title for the third one? Sure, it might sound a bit campy, I guess, but I think it fits in thematically with where Batman is at this point. His work is most definitely a crusade, if not a misunderstood one.

Whatever happens in the third one, it has to be smaller and more intimate than The Dark Knight was. In my opinion, the Joker escalated things as far as they can go.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'm not too fearful of a SM3 situation. But you never know. SM2 was a great movie, and the thing that followed came from the exact same team. That said, Nolan had a lot of leeway for 2 and isn't signed for 3. I'm sure signing him will be a priority, and that he'll guard his work pretty carefully. The execs at DC (if not Warner) have to be thrilled with how their flagship character is being treated. That said, lots of money means more meddling.

Your second point is very thoughtful, Paul. I've also wondered how it'll be for Batman, being actively hunted by the police, while maintaining his crusade. The mob thinking he is capable of murder will help a bit, but his relationship with Gordon provided not only access, but validation. He's going to (if not lose it completely) find that relationship altered. Especially if he gets a bit drastic (tapping into the police database, having to violently defend himself against police officers) in his methodology. I do think a linchpin of the third film should be the relationship between Gordon and Batman.

 

[Pete-D]

I still think they will have to replace the female presence of Rachel for a third film.

Catwoman maybe. Though I heard Nolan wasn't crazy about either Penguin/Catwoman. But again I wonder if Lucius' line about cats was just a coincidence or meant to wink at Catwoman.

Or perhaps say Rachel Weisz as Talia al Ghul.

I don't think any suit at WB should have any say in what tone the next one has. Obviously the Nolan films are dark and people like dark, so leave it be.

I'm guessing Scarecrow will probably be back also (though likely in a small part to finish off his story arc).

 

[Les Samuel]

Nolan's theatrical resume is small. Does anyone know if he's even interested in a third? He may not want to do a third, if there's hesitation on his part of course they'll throw a lot of loot at him to get him to do it and that may not be good idea. Also keep in mind Bryan Singer was going to do X3 before being lured to the Superman franchise.

With his directional resume being small he may what to direct something a little more personal for him rather than 50% of his work being the Batman franchise. If he bolts from the franchise talk about the air going out of the balloon fast...

From the MovieBlog.com
In today’s film market place you can’t blame a studio for not rushing ahead with future sequels until they see how the market is shaking out and how their current project will fair in theaters. So at this point any speculations or rumors you hear about the third Batman flick is just that… speculation and rumors. The project has not been green lit nor are any plans officially on the books.

Having said that, you’d have to be blind deaf and dumb to not know that WILL eventual be a third part to this series. One way or the other, WB will get a third film in the works, and you can bet your ass Christian Bale will be back as the Bat…. the only question is if Nolan will be back to direct. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Nolan WON’T be back to direct a thrid film… I’m just saying I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t. Directors get bored, and studios aren’t afraid to switch up directors in a franchise (it worked pretty well for Star Wars and Harry Potter so far)

From the movieWeb.com
Oldman than took a moment to think about it some more, "Maybe we don't need the Joker. Because we'll have The Riddler." Yes, Oldman alluded to the fact that The Riddler may in fact be the next on-screen Batman villain.

When I asked if he, himself, wanted to come back for a third segment, he smiled coyly, "We don't really know if Nolan is coming back." He then shook his head. "I guess I have to come back." He then put his hand to the side of his mouth as if to hide the next line from everybody, "Nolan will come back for a third one. I think we all have to." It is well known that Oldman tried to get out of appearing in The Dark Knight, but his contract wouldn't allow it.

Next, I asked Christopher Nolan if he wanted to come back for a third Batman film, and he said that he wasn't sure that he wanted to come back, "I don't know. I take my projects one at a time, and I am not thinking about that right now. I don't know if I want to come back." After that, I asked, "If you do choose to make a third Batman film, do you think that you would recast for the Joker? Or will he not appear in the film?"

Nolan's replay, "I don't know. I honestly have not taken a moment away from what is going on with the film now to even think about that. I don't know. I simply don't know."

 

[DavidPla]

If I remember, Nolan had pretty much the same answer after Batman Begins was released. He said he wasn't sure if he was coming back and nothing was definite about a second film. Yet he went off to do a "smaller" project The Prestige and then made the second film. I feel he'll go off again to do a "smaller" project and then finish his Bat-trilogy.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

First off i'd like to say that they should NOT recast the Joker! Ledger gave us what I believe to be THE definitive take on him and to try to tamper with that would be a HUGE gamble and not one worth attempting IMO.

Can't say I like the idea for Catwoman or the Penguin, either, my mind is still fresh with bad memories of these two characters (Devito was too creepy and not in the good Ledger way and Michelle Phieffer and Halle Berry were just flat out lame) and i'm just not ready to see them associated with Nolan's brilliant take on this whole thing.

Nolan has his work cut out for him that's for sure and I wouldn't trade places with him for all the sex I could possibly want with Scarlett Johansson right now lol. He has to top what he did here and i'm afraid that he might overkill it like Spider-man 3 did. :frowning:

Have no idea how he will pull this third film off (if he's even at the helm which I hope to god he is) but I have the utmost confidence in him.

 

[ThomasC]

Dude, no way. You take Scarlett any way you can.

 

[DavidPla]

Halle Berry, yes. Michelle Pfeiffer, no freakin' way. In fact, her character and performance is right up there with any of the characters and performances in The Dark Knight.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I said this before so here I go again. If they cast Angelina Jolie as the Catwoman, she will allow us to forget Phieffer and Berry's association with that role.





Crawdaddy

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

But why? Both of those women are equally hot IMO and they did nothing for me in those roles, what makes Angelina different? She's a decent actress and yes she's damn hot but hotness isn't all it takes to be Catwoman.

They need to write, design and cast her right for her to be effective.

Besides, Jolie is a little too "generic" or "default" for me, if Hollywood needs a sexy actress to wear tight leather and kick ass in movies they call Jolie, I expect Nolan to be more careful than that and get someone we wouldn't expect in that role. I want him to be as calculating as he was when he chose Heath for the Joker.

Getting Jolie for Catwoman seems like something that Joel Shumacher would do IMO, in fact that would pretty much be my train of thought if I were making a Batman film, think about what Shumacher would do and then do the exact opposite lol.

 

[Robert Crawford]

What makes Angelina different is the level of danger she brings to her roles. The way she moves around in a film reminds me of a feline. Her eyes are similar to cat eyes. Just take a look at her in Beowulf, Mr. & Mrs. Smith and Wanted then you will see what I mean as to what she can bring to that role. Furthermore, don't expect the Nolan brothers to write the role with any similarities to those other catwoman roles. I expect their depiction of catwoman to have a definate edge to her that speaks to the complexity of the catwoman character.