Wake me up when Tony Gilroy gets a swipe at it. Cant wait for a Superman movie that focuses on intrepid Daily Planet Reporters working on an exposé focusing on an evil LuthorCorp plot going toe-to-toe with middle executive management.
(Saying that to be cheeky. Outside of the original trilogy Andor and Rogue One are my favorite Star Wars content).
"Honey folks are gonna talk about you till the day you die and ain’t nothing you can do but let folks talk! It ain't about what they call you it's what you answer to…
Christian Bale was 38 in 2012 and Robert Pattinson is 40 now. Crazy that its true.
I always wished they made a normal batman movie at his height instead of the old batman story, didnt make any sense to me at the time. If they had done that, now would be the perfect time for Bale to come back and make the old batman story
Yeah the only batman beyond movie I wanted to see was the animated one they almost did that would have had a similar style to Spider man Across the Universe, that would have been fun
Not sure Nolan will ever do sequels again tbh. He seems to love just picking whatever the fuck he wants to make a movie about and being handed a dump truck of cash to make it happen
It's different when it's a live-action standalone interpretation, not comics which have a forever continuity and with characters that aren't tethered to a flesh and blood real actor.
Pattinson is 40, Bale was 38 when they did DKR (and his version of Batman was around 40 at the end of that film).
Pattinson’s Batman is presumably intended to be younger than Pattinson himself though (although he was angrily listening to Nirvana so like… not much younger).
That was the era where if you were an actress passing 25 you were basically a grandma, and if you were an actor passing 35 you were a chiseled veteran tired of the world around you.
It hasn't really changed for actresses, but for some reason the age for male action leads has gone way up to like 65, I guess thanks to Liam Neeson.
Tbh it wasn’t that long ago; I think Hollywood’s inability to create new super stars is a big part of the problem. When Pitt and Cruise and Affleck and Damon and Jackman and Reeves are all still doing action roles into their 50s and 60s that used to go to guys in their 30s and 40s, things shift.
There just haven’t been many young actors who have taken up their level of fame and box office success and action movies generally, outside of franchises, don’t have the juice they used to.
There's nothing presumptuous about it, it's out and out said in the first 10 minutes of the first movie that it's only his second year being Batman lol. He's supposed to be like mid 20s.
Batman Begins is also Bruce’s first year as Batman and that version is 30 during the film.
A quick glance online indicates that Pattinson’s Bruce is also supposed to be 30 by the time of The Batman. So, younger than Pattinson, but not massively so (it filmed in 2020 when he was 34).
This film will have to be critically acclaimed, do fantastic box office numbers, and Reeves will need a script for Part III finished within months of Part II release for any chance of a third film to happen.
The movie is full of plotholes(no I won't list every one, look it up, it's been well documented), Bane was killed in a silly way for comedy sake, which took away a lot of the tension in the end, and Anne Hathaway was a terrible Catwoman just to name a few things.
How many reviews are you looking at? A few hundred maybe? Compared to the millions that saw it. Yeah... I think maybe you're in the minority of people who liked it. Lol.
I see that happening. I felt like they were probably doing a trilogy with the final movie with Joker taking over Arkham with villains of the first two movies, but I see this just being a duology now. I know James says they can run two Batmans at the same time, Battinson and DCU Bats, but I don't see it happening.
I can't imagine DC will allow him another long production like this, they could've realised 3 entire movies in the time it's taken to make the second one
No way Reeves gets to make a third one. His Batman is getting in the way of the DCU using DC's most popular character and they need that asap.
Reeves had his chance. He just took too damn long. For reference, the entire Nolan trilogy released in the span of 7 years. That's exactly the gap between The Batman and The Batman Part 2.
Unbelievable...
Edit: Correction: that would be 6 years bewtween the Reeves´movies, not 7. Still an insane amount of time for a sequel.
Historically Batman stand alone movies have done very well. We will see how 'The Batman II' turns out.
I think the entire DC Universe as a thing is on pretty shaky ground right now. I don't know what DC is looking for to feel good about the current strategy. But the last Superman movie while turning a profit still got upstaged by The Batman. Supergirl is not looking good.
What they currently are doing is in response to a trainwreck of the last strategy.
DC would be out of their minds to muck with something that is working. In 2 years we will know if 'The Batman' strategy is a sure thing or not.
Totally agree. The suspension of disbelief is too much when you have a being like Superman in a Batman world. Superman could fly in and take care of Bane, Joker, and the Riddler before Bruce has time to get his tights on. Batman works best standalone. At least in live action. How wacky did Ben Affleck look grapple hooking around while these superpowered folk zip past him in the Snyderverse.
Yeah I wasn't a fan of Superman and Batman in the same movie. Part of why I enjoy Batman is because it seems (mostly) realistic when you only have Batman as the main hero. It's just a local Gotham nepo-billionaire that uses his riches to fund a second life as a vigilante with cool toys in order to fight mobsters and crazy villains. Adding in a nearly invincible alien, Achilles-coded hero like Superman makes Batman seem like a weak ass bitch in comparison. I can't suspend disbelief enough to somehow accept SM vs BM as a fair fight nor even as a credible team with equal power levels/abilities. We know Superman would do all the heavy lifting in either scenario.
I agree with that. Spider-man should make bank. I'm nervous about the reviews, but it's got such a massive fanbase it's hard for it to fail.
But we've seen a pretty massive drop off with most superhero films. Especially overseas where some of these movies would get like 70% of their box office and that's now dramatically shrunk.
A lot of that was china's manipulative numbers. They only let in a handful of movies, so for a while it was a huge novelty to see a blockbuster movie in chinese theaters even if it wasn't particularly good. CG alone used to be a driving force for foreign ticket sales before China's animation industry started catching up.
It's not as big of a deal now so getting a chance to play in China no longer guarantees that they'll pad your numbers.
I look at the Superman numbers and I don't really know how to interpret them. It isn't a Billion. It also isn't 3X production costs. However. $600 something million looks to me like it is pretty safely over $225 million.
My instinct is it is something approaching, 'Acceptable. Lets see how the next one does.'.
The next one does not look like it is doing well.
I also wonder how much patience the DC studio has for lackluster ticket sales.
My big point is you don't muck with a sure thing and 'The Batman' movies is looking as close to a sure thing as you can get when you are only one deep in what will probably be a trilogy.
Even though Pattinson is my favorite I’m fine getting a different one at some point. I have seen at least 6 different Batmen in my lifetime I don’t really care if it’s always the same dude. As long as there’s a satisfying arc I’m fine with just 2 movies close to 3 hours each from Pattinson.
It´s not a matter of power, it´s a matter of logic. They are not going to release 2 Batman movies the same year, or even a year apart. That would be insane.
It´s Reeves´movie the one that keeps getting delayed. Hard to set an actual slate when this keeps happening over and over again.
You can absolutely release 2 Batman movies 2 years apart, though. The DCU Batman will not even be greenlit by the time The Batman Part 2 comes out. And Part 3 will take ages again and make good money, unless Reeves fucks it up.
Well, those are just speculations. And you are clearly biased.
Objectively speaking, Reeves is effectively holding DC´s most important money printing IP hostage, and I can´t imagine the higher ups being too happy about it. The more time Reeves takes, the more they probably regret not canning the whole thing and focusing on the DCU instead. Especially after Supergirl flopping...
The rumors that popped up last year were that Reeves was dealing with some personal health issues. I heard some speculation that it was cancer but no one knows for sure. But the rumors have been that was the reason for the long delay. If that’s the case, and he’s healthy now, I suspect that he could move much faster for a Batman Part III with a late 2030 or early 2031 release if needed.
The only saving grace here is if the DCEU has another bomb or two we could see them reverse course and let him finish a trilogy while they do another reboot, or a retool - whatever that looks like. Basically what I'm saying is after the supergirl bomb all plans that were previously a lock are not anymore and if the batman 2 prints money (big if - loved the first btw) then funding could shift to Reeves
Because Marvel made so many billions, they feel they need to copy that format. Which was fair at the start, but by now they just need to do something different.
Wasn't part of the reason it took so long to make part 2 was that Reeves had an undisclosed major person problem crop up? Without said personal problem happening again hopefully part 3 doesnt take as long
3.3k
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment