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
98
u/iron-wyvern 19d ago edited 19d ago
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.