Epilogue to The Dark Knight Week: One Month Later - Who and What SHOULD Be in Batman 3

Hey there, True Believers. Finally ... I'm back with an all-new entry, after a week of craziness during which, on multiple occasions, I tried to write something here on the blog, but just got too distracted or tied up to finish any posts worthy of the All-New, All-Awesome Adventures.

So I have like 50 things to talk about, but I think I'll save those for another entry. What I want to do now is to talk for a minute about THE DARK KNIGHT. As avid readers know, I've been promising for a while now to do an epilogue entry of sorts to my Dark Knight Week series that preceeded the movie's release up and until my big review of the movie itself. Now, here we are, about one month after the movie's release, with TDK already ranked as one of the top grossing movies of all-time, and a bonafide box office sensation. So of course the question becomes: what's next? Even under normal circumstances, a third movie in Christopher Nolan's Bat-franchise would be a hot topic, but given the tragic curcumstances surrounding Heath Ledger's death, the question of what shape a third movie could take becomes even more complex.

The first question is, of course - what villains should be used in a new Bat-movie? TDK seems to set things up for the return of the Joker - so with that in mind, the question is - should somebody ELSE take on the role that Heath Leger so skillfully redefined? The same names come up over and over again in these conversations - Johnny Depp, for one - and I'm sure that there are at least a few actors out there who could do an amazing job as the Clown Prince of Crime.

Personally though, the move I've thought about it, the more I think that The Joker SHOULD be a presence in a Part 3, but that - especially given the circumstance of Heath Ledger's death - it might be just as effective if he's never actually seen. One of the main threads of a Part 3 could be that the Joker's theatrical presence has inspired a string of similarly outlandish villains, slowly beginning to fill up the corridors of Arkham Asylum. The mere fact the the Joker is still out there, still in effect "winning" his war on Gotham and against Batman, could be an overarching theme of the film - even if we never actually see the Joker himself. I mean, what better way to cap off Nolan's trilogy then by replaying the ending of Begins - with Batman seemingly victorious, only to be presented with a reminder that The Joker, his most dangerous nemesis, is still out there and might well be for years and years to come? I can't think of a cooler way to close the trilogy than with a Joker playing card, a maniacal laugh, and the lasting image of Batman rushing off into the darkness to once again do battle with his arch-enemy.

But this begs the question - if not the Joker, then what villains SHOULD play a primary part in a third Batman film? First off, I think you've got to have TWO FACE in the mix. More so than even the Joker, there is an urgency to the story of Harvey Dent that begs for some finality in a future film.

Here's an idea: fans of the comics know that the villain of BATMAN BEGINS, Ra's Al Ghul, is famous for his use of the mystical "Lazarus Pits," strange pools that heal anyone who bathes in them of all injury, and act as a fountain of youth of sorts. Perhaps Liam Neeson could return as Ra's in a Part 3, working in the shadows to organize Gotham's costumed villains to wage war on the city. His chief lieutenant? Two Face - who has been promised a dip in the Lazarus Pits in exchange for his services. This plotline would also allow Nolan to take a stab at bringing to life a few more members of Batman's famous rogues gallery - everyone from Killer Croc to Poison Ivy to Mr. Freeze to Harley Quinn could potentially make a cameo - each enticed by a particularly irrestible offer from Ra's. The saga of Two Face would remain front and center though - as his fall from grace is rendered complete and irreversable by his deal with the devil.

If, however, I had to pick only one villain, other than Two Face, who SHOULD, and probably WILL, be in the next Batman film ... I would definitely say CATWOMAN. While I realize that my slightly ambitious idea above is a longshot for a gritty Nolan-directed Batman film, I think Catwoman, more so than any other Batman rogue, would fit perfectly into the world that Nolan has crafted thus far. All one needs to do is read Batman: Year One (which was already a lot of the inspiration for "Begins") or any of Ed Brubaker's street-level run on Catwoman, and it's clear that it's only natural that the character reappear on the bigscreen. Not only would she provide a much-needed female presence and quasi-love interest in the film, but including Catwoman would be doing fans a service, in that it would erase and negate the atrocious Halle Berry vehicle from a few years back in one fell swoop. Not to mention, at the end of TDK, we left off with a Batman who was on the wrong side of the law despite his good intentions, who was trying to preserve his moral highground despite increasingly psychotic and violent enemies plaguing Gotham. This overarching theme is a perfect fit for Catwoman, a morally-ambiguous character who steals for the thrill of it, but who ultimately uses here talents to help others. At first, Batman could find himself at odds with Gotham's mysterious new cat burglar, but eventually, the two could form an uneasy alliance in order to take down a larger threat. Keeping with Nolan's grittier take on things, this version of Catwoman could adapt Frank Miller's darker version - a poor former callgirl from Gotham's East End who, inspired by Batman, dons her catlike costume in order to protect those who fall under the radar of the police and even Batman himself.

Now, as for who should play Catwoman ... I know it's almost too obvious and for some it's an unappealling choice ... But man, I can't help but think that Angelina Jolie was simply born to play Selina Kyle. Sure there are some other choices out there - anyone from Eva Green to Katee Sackhoff - but I can't help but think that Jolie, despite her status as a tabloid star, could really knock it out of the park if given the chance to play Catwoman as directed by Christopher Nolan.

So I think it's pretty realistic to look at Catwoman as a strong possibility for Batman 3. And I think a return appearance by Two Face is probably a given. Ra's Al Ghul? Maybe. And we've still yet to see Ra's femme fatale daughter Talia surface in these films - might she be in the cards?

For some reason though, everyone keeps mentioning The Riddler as a possibility for Batman 3. And all I can ask is: why? The Riddler is a fun villain, no doubt, and in the comics his appearances often make for a fun diversion between more serious storylines. Right now, in fact, Paul Dini is doing a great job of painting Edward Nigma as a cool supporting character in Detective Comics - where Nigma is now a villain gone straight (kind of). Having dumped his criminal ways, Nigma has reinvented himself as a rival detective to the Batman, hiring out his services to the highest bidder. I like the Riddler - the great Frank Gorshin did an awesome job of portraying him back in the day on the old Adam West show, and Paul Dini and Bruce Timm did some cool stuff with him years later on The Animated Series. But Riddler is a villain that to me doesn't quite fit in with what Nolan's been doing with the franchise. That is, unless you alter the character to become some kind of clue-obsessed serial killer or something, as a few have suggested. To me though, that's just an unnecessary warping of the character, a villain who is a lot of fun but mostly representative of a different, more light-hearted brand of Batman adventure.

The same goes for The Penguin. I like Penguin as a supporting character - a highbrow freak who considers himself above most other criminals. He runs the Iceberg Lounge and uses it as a front for his dealings with the Gotham Underground. But like The Riddler, the Penguin is by no means an appropriate or worthy followup to the Joker as a primary villain in a third movie. I'd love to see him pop up as a side character, but why anyone would want him as a main villain is beyond me.

Of course, I recognize that even the seemingly-goofiest of Batman villains can be dark and kickass in the right hands. Case in point: the thought of Ah-nold as Mr. Freeze still makes me shudder, but man, sign up Patrick Stewart to the role, and follow the storyline set forth by the Animated Series ...? That's a badass movie right there.

I've also heard some say that a third Batman film would be a good time to bring in BANE and do an adaptation of the popular Knightfall storyline of the mid-90's. While I'd love to see Bane done right (yet another thing that Joel Schumaker f'd up ...), I think that character and that storyline only really works when there's been a long history established in terms of Batman's crimefighting career. The whole point of Bane was that he came into the picture and after years of criminals trying to off the Bat - he finally did it. The Batman of Nolan's movieverse is still a relative rookie, so given that, it'd be hard to do a Knightfall-like, "Batman's Last Stand"-style storyline. Still, if there was some way to bring in Bane as a villain, it would certainly be interesting to see what Nolan's take on him would be.

One other idea that's been floating around - the concept of simply flashing into the future and doing something radical with a third movie: adapting Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Look, I think everyone wants to see this in some form. Not only is DKR one of the best Batman stories of all time, it's one of the best graphic novels ever written, period. And after Sin City and 300, who wouldn't love to see a similarly stylized take on Batman, and specifically, on DKR? It could be a kickass movie, but to me that's something entirely separate from Nolan's Bat franchise. His world is realistic. The world of DKR is hyper-stylized. One of its most famous scenes is an epic fight to the death between an armored Batman and a government-controlled Superman. I can't see that at all fitting into Nolan's world. Now, you COULD say that Nolan would take some of the basic elements of DKR and use them as a basis for a third movie. Okay, that I could see. But I'd much rather Nolan just make a third Batman film that fits into what he's done so far, and let Zack Snyder or Frank Miller make their own version of DKR sometime down the line, in a manner that captures all the craziness and extreme stylization of the book.

Okay, now here's the big issue that needs to be tackled for a third Batman movie, and no, it's not whether or not Alfred will finally be sportin' the 'stache. The issue in question is this: should a third film include one of the most well-known and longest-standing members of Batman's supporting cast - that being: ROBIN ...?!?! It's a tough question, because many people view Robin as a somewhat silly, lighthearted character who doesn't fit into the dark world that Nolan has established. It doesn't help that, the last time that Robin was brought to the bigscreen, it was in the godawful Schumacher-directed Bat flicks, where Chris O'Donnell's portrayal became one giant joke.

But think about it - in comics like DARK VICTORY, A DEATH IN THE FAMILY, and ROBIN: YEAR ONE, we've seen Robin stories that are dark, serious in tone, and really do add to the Batman mythology. I think that one key element that's been missing from most non-comics versions of Robin is the idea that Robin is essentially a foster-son to Bruce Wayne. This is why you need a young Robin who is clearly in the age range where he could be like a son to Bruce. And, if you think about it, a young Dick Grayson being adopted by Bruce Wayne fits perfectly into the arc that Nolan has set in motion. The Dark Knight took Batman and Gotham to the edge of the abyss, and ended on a solemn note of hopelessness. Batman himself became an outlaw, after seeing his friend Harvey Dent turned to the dark side and The Joker call into question Batman's own shaky moral high ground. Any third Batman film would necessarilly begin on a note of relative hopelessness, so what better time to bring in Robin, who is the one symbol of Hope in Batman's otherwise bleak world. As has been said in the comics, for all his failings, raising Dick Grayson was the one thing Bruce Wayne can always point to as an area where he unquestionably succeeded. Now, sure, having a young 13 year old kid swinging around in green and red tights and fighting crime might be a little much for Nolan's Bat-verse. But there is surely a way to do the Robin story in a more toned-down, realistic manner. Have Robin be more a behind-the-scenes aid than a crimefighter - maybe only hint that down the line he could become a hero equal to Batman. Have him train, sure, but maybe keep him in the shadows until the movie's end, when perhaps he is forced into battle to save his mentor. Give him a more modern costume, equivalent to the one Robin currently wears in the comics. And make his origin tragic and tell it on the same high level as Dini and timm did in their classic Animated Series episodes, "Robin's Reckoning." I know Nolan has said that he'd be against doing Robin in a movie, but I hope he reconsiders and sees how the concept could be done right, and fit perfectly into the themes that have been building throughout the first two films.

All that's left is the question of what the third film should be called. I've heard some say "The Caped Crusader," but to me that sounds totally off from the tone of the franchise under Nolan. No, to me the best title is that which was used by a comic series that launched back in '89 to coincide with Tim Burton's Batman. The title was "Shadow of the Bat," and given the direction Nolan has taken the franchise, I can't think of any title more appropriate for a potential Part 3.

So I'm sure there will be much rumor and speculation about a third Nolan-helmed Batman film in the coming months, and I have enough faith in the cast and crew to assume that whatever happens, we'll get a quality third film if the same principles are involved. But it's worth taking a minute and simply absorbing the fact that the second highest-grossing movie ever is now a dark, violent, disturbing, nearly R-rated take on Batman vs. The Joker. Wow, that sort of kicks ass.