As much as I think Dark Knight is the best film I've seen this year, I don't see how it can be topped -- after all, it's pretty much following the post-'90s super hero movie franchise tradition of having a solid opening film and an even stronger second film, which means the third could suck serious ass. Iron Man needs that superior second film still, so that's what I voted for.

I voted Iron Man II as well, though for different reasons. One, I'm not interested in where DKIII might go. I liked DK a lot, a real lot, but it did not leave me wanting. Iron Man did. It's hard to envision DK topping itself, whereas you can see GREAT potential for a second, even better Iron Man flick.

As for Spider-Man IV, I'm interested if the core cast comes back, otherwise I'm dubious and reserve judgment as to whether or not I care. I know some folks say What'shisname is getting too old, but whatever. I like his Peter Parker and would like some continuity between the films.

I haven't seen Iron Man I yet...

I voted for Spidey IV cuz now that the bar has been raised considerably, how will this franchise respond?

That was kind of the point that I started to make before my "third movie sucks" rant grabbed my post and worried at it like a dog with an old rag.

Wouldn't it be Dark Knight 2, or Batman 3?

The Iron Man franchise still has that new car smell. It has more possibilities, nothing to "fix" from previous movies. I think it has an easier road.

Batman is more of a challenge. Does Nolan take the simple route and bring in a new villain, or does he attempt to do what he did with DK and improve on a previous bad guy?

I'm looking forward to both, but from a meta point of view I'm looking forward to seeing what Nolan does with Batman.

(But Terrence Howard in that other Iron Man suit is going to kick ass.)

I haven't seen Iron Man or Dark Knight yet.

That's why I voted for DK3; I figured that Iron Man II is almost def gonna be good where both Spidey IV and DK3 are somewhat wildcards. Curiosity is a bigger factor for me than how good I think a movie actually will be.

After watching SM3 last night and realizing that despite its incredible fights and FX, it's just a flat out bad movie, then thinking about how almost perfect SM2 was, leaves me wondering if Raimi can recover the franchise.

Spidey 4 but the other two are coming first.

Iron Man 2 over Bats 3 though. IM 2 will improve on IM 1. Bats 3 will not improve on Bats 2.

Spider-Man 3 tried to do too much. Should have been two movies, with Venom introduced at the very end and being the featured villain in SM4. Using Venom ended up being a total waste of a cool visual.

I thought Raimi was done with the franchise. I assumed his allowing Venom into the movie was his way of saying, "I just don't care anymore. I'm outta' here."

Raimi said he'd be interested in directing if Tobey comes back "if they want me back."

If not directing, he will be the producer.

Unlike Spidey 3, he and his brother are not writing it, however.

Venom was there because the producers kept saying to him "the one villain we keep hearing from fans is Venom, Venom, Venom. They really want Venom. Can you put him in there?"

Spidey 4 is not scheduled though until 2011, 2010 earliest!, but may be shot back to back with Spidey 5.

4, 5, and 6 have been greenlighted. and Sony paid Marvel this spring to reactivate their license to make those 3 films.

I picked Iron Man II because I think it still has some up to go. I find it hard to belive that DK3 would even touch the heights of DK2.

And while some people complain about the cliffhanger ending of DK, I thought it was a perfect ending/beginning.

Rocky should have been two movies, with the Bell for the fight being the cliffhanger. Then you could have the second movie be all about the fight, instead of having to rush through it.

I've said it before, but if you wanted to actually make Venom a cool villain that's more than great powers and visual; Harry Osbourne should have become Venom.

No Sandman, Peter just gets the symbiote, his personality gets dark in a non-comedic way, he gets rid of it, Harry (who's been tailing him) gets the symbiote-- now you have a fight.

Radiers of the Lost Ark should have been two movies, with Indy's escape from the sub being a perfect stopping point. Then the second movie could have concentrated on getting the grail back.

Raiders of the Lost Ark should have been 26 different films. The first film should end with the giant granite ball chasing Indy; that way we don't have to rush through all of the opening scene. We can finally learn what the ball's motivation was.

Ha, me and Ross picked the same movie!

Star Wars should have been two movies, a perfect ending point would be where Kenobi dies and the Falcon escapes. Then you could concentrate on the death star battle in the second one and not have to rush through it.

Superman the movie should have been 402 seperate films, with the first film ending after we pan over the surface of the planet Krypton.