I did indeed find it to be a good read. I don't foresee there being too many villains. I think Nolan knows better and won't do what he can't handle.

I think everybody knows my position on Catwoman at this point. However, if she does appear, I could see her being more like making an appearance at the end, and possibly playing more of a "walk the line between villain and hero" type role.

Really, that could leave just Hugo Strange and Bane being the two villains. Hugo Strange is brought on board by the cops to help hunt down Batman (who all think to be a villain). Meanwhile, Bane really is a villain who is teaming with Hugo behind-the-scenes (due to Strange making that super steroid serum for him--I know, that's not how it actually went, but Nolan is allowed "poetic license" to change it up a bit). All the while, Gordon is leading the manhunt for Batman while really helping him behind-the-scenes. This all happening while Bane is wreaking havoc on the city (in an effort to lure out Batman because he and Hugo both know the real story that Batman isn't the bad guy). This could eventually lead to a showdown between Batman and Bane as the city is desperate; wanting Batman's head, but at the same time knowing he's the only one that can save them from Bane.

And all that culminates in Bane breaking Batman's back. While this is going on though, Gordon is gathering proof of what Hugo is really up to. When Batman meets his end, Gordon reveals all, thus making Batman a martyr after his "demise" which causes the city to rally against the lower-level criminals against their city in honor of Batman, while Gordon is bringing Hugo to justice.

The good people of the city are left inspired by Batman's actions over the course of everything and how he was willing to be the bad guy for them when he really wasn't. This inspires them to help clean up the streets on their own, while Gordon is left as the new face of crime-fighting for the city. Their new "White Knight".

Wow _ that sure is a mouthful sir. I'd love to see Bane take Batman out and have been saying that since Bane was announced but someone has to take over for Batman and it can't be the citizens of Gotham. A character has to be introduced who inherits the role and that's where I see Joseph Gordon Levitt coming in. Time will tell but I know that I'm looking forward to seeing it. In fact, I think I'll go home tonight and toss in TDK just cause.

Yea, I mean in theory somebody needs to take over. And I didn't mean to imply that the citizens and Gordon would do that permanently (just as a sort of inspired uprising against crime at the end of the movie). Then in theory, beyond that storyline somebody would step in and take Batman's place.

Here's the thing though: this is Nolan's last Batman movie. I don't think he wants to leave it open-ended (I know I wouldn't). Thus doing something like, say, having Batman get taken out at the end, then right at the very end having a shot of Joseph Gordon-Levitt standing in the Batcave looking at the Batsuit. That would leave it too open-ended. That's practically a teaser for a sequel right there.

Not to mention, who is JGL up till that point? Dick Grayson? That means I have to deal with Robin? No thank you. And apparently Bale really doesn't want that either (nor Nolan as Bale has stated). And you certainly can't just have JGL show up at the end to simply be teased as a Batman replacement as that's just a waste of his talent not featuring him throughout the whole movie.

Honestly, I really have no idea where Gordon-Levitt fits into Nolan's plans.

Yeah, blind faith is a good way of putting it for me too. The man knows what he's doing and I'm content to let him do whatever he wants with it, because somehow, he'll pull it off.

Yeah, but sometimes blind faith isn't good. Every director is always going to have a bad bump if you ask me.

Of course every director will hit a bump in the road at some point (though if anybody can avoid that, it's seeming maybe Nolan would be the one). However, till he proves me wrong, Nolan absolutely gets the benefit of the doubt for me. He's never done me wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him yet.

Even still, once having that bad bump, it can be forgiven (as long as it doesn't become a downhill slide). For instance, Hitchcock, one of my favorite directors of all time. I love his movies, though I still haven't seen them all. Anyways, some years ago I came across a movie of his Mr and Mrs Smith. I thought "Hmm a screwball romantic comedy from Hitchcock? That should be interesting". Watched it. It was pretty crap. He was definitely at his best in the suspense-thriller genre, not romantic comedies or slapstick.

Despite that, though, I will 100% give any of the Hitchcock movies that I haven't seen a chance even if they are the obscure British ones that I've never even heard of before.