The Dark Knight (Formerly Batman Begins 2)

[LincM]

Yes. It's official.

See IMDb.

Personally, I think this is more imporant a piece of information than Ledger being Joker (which is also confirmed now).

But how cool (and somewhat risky, but who cares) that the films doesn't actually have "Batman" in the title.

I'm excited about this.

[KenHart]

I do dig the title. Its sounds pretty epic and noiry.

[trevor]

Hmmmm...David S. Goyer is helping to write the story. The same guy who wrote Blade Trinity. He also helped write Begins.

Anyone know about if they're going to include any additional villians?

[LincM]

Doesn't look like it. The IMDb synopsis details it as being Jim and Harvey helping Batman fight the Joker.

Maybe at the end we'll see the becoming of Two face from Harvey Dent, but there's nothing about that in black and white.

I really like the idea of them doing the opposite of the original films and instead of increasing the amount of foes, just increasing the quality and reducing the number. It might seem like it makes it easier on the good guy, but that just means that the writers have a harder job on their hands.

Anyone agree with me?

[trevor]

I agree. Less bad guys, more good story-telling.

[LincM]

It just makes you believe in the bad guy.

Otherwise it's like "Hey, look at Batman while he defeats The Penguin, Catwoman, all of the Penguins cronies and the Megalomaniac Max Shreck".

It makes you think one of two things: That Batman's better than he is or that the foes are not any good.

I really liked in Batman Begins that he was knocked out in bed for a while because of the Scarecrow. I thought it was a really nice touch of humanity that gets left aside quite often.

[chamber715]

Yes. It's official.

See IMDb.

Personally, I think this is more imporant a piece of information than Ledger being Joker (which is also confirmed now).

But how cool (and somewhat risky, but who cares) that the films doesn't actually have "Batman" in the title.

I'm excited about this.

They actually announced the title at the same time they announced Heath Ledger was playing the Joker. But let's forget the fact that you're coming a little late to the party and embrace the fact that you showed up at all...

The title may be "The Dark Knight" now, but I'm betting somewhere between now and when we actually see the movie they're going to add a "Batman" in there somewhere. Because there's no way that Warner Brothers is going to let a franchise like Batman have a sequel where the franchise name isn't anywhere in the title.

[trevor]

Or they could come up with a zinnger of a title and call it "Batman Forever..."

...what the hell does that even mean?

[suckerpunch]

and the Megalomaniac Max Shreck".

but dude... it was Walken.

[Pogues]

Less villians is usually better. If they have like three villians all the story suffers because they usually never explain the origins right or at all. They should concentrate on just writing one villian really well. Having add on villians with subplots isn't to bad (like Scarecrow in the Begins).

[Willeth]

I wouldn't call Scarecrow in Begins a sub-plot. At all.

Wasn't Batman Forever simply called 'Forever' with the Bat-symbol in the background?

[Fresno Bob]

I was hoping it would be Batman Begins, Batman continues, and then Batman Ends

A nice little trilogy there...where he retires at the end of the third and gets old so the next Batman movie would be a Batman Beyond....

[trevor]

I was hoping it would be Batman Begins, Batman continues, and then Batman Ends

A nice little trilogy there...where he retires at the end of the third and gets old so the next Batman movie would be a Batman Beyond....

Hello: "The Dark Knight Returns"

Now, that's the movie I want to see....

[Pogues]

I wouldn't call Scarecrow in Begins a sub-plot. At all.

Well the poison is the main plot, but really Scarecrow's character could have been just a sciencist. He was sort of a throw away character in a lot of ways. I guess calling him a sub-plot is a bad way to put it i will agree with you.

[Willeth]

You're right in that he could have just been a scientist, but who better to do it than Crane? His knowledge of chemicals is unparalleled.