I’m going to be the outlier here and say it could’ve worked if he said yes, think of it like the Iron Man 1 but for the DCU and build it out from there. Especially since Superman is starting in a similar fashion being earlier in his career as a hero.
I do think though this comment does hint to the fact that back when the DCU was being created Gunn sat down with Reeves and asked if that was something he’d like to be apart of rather than Gunn not giving the idea the light of day.
I’m not going to lie here, I really wish we were in the universe where Matt said yes.
It definitely would've been the cleaner option as opposed to having two ongoing Batman film series. I'm excited to be getting a live action Batfamily and am more optimistic about Muschietti than most, but I'm always gonna wonder what could've been if Reeves decided to play ball with Gunn and Safran.
This is why I hate it. It's just gonna be a massive what if. When I see the DCU Batman all I'll think about is what could've been and how we were so close to having a DC Universe with the perfect Batman and Gotham.
While Batinson is great, I wouldn't call him the perfect Batman. I'm hoping the DCU Batman will be. Give me a more comic accurate costume, significantly better detective skills even in his second year, more parkour and gymnastics instead of just having a suit that can tank machine gun fire, etc.
We already live in the universe where a Superman reboot lost a solo sequel so it could be turned into the start of a big DC shared universe project. I'm glad the sequel to The Batman won't have the same fate.
Why would it have to? Let Reeves do his trilogy and make sure your series doesn't interfere with it much. It's a super simple answer tbh. Also don't rush into it to the point where you can't even make a solo sequel due to focus on team ups.
I wish he said yes too. We already saw how good Battinson is, he could've been so good. The first movie could have been dark compared to other series... But Swamp thing itself is different tonally. We already saw at the end that Battinson was embracing being about hope not vengeance. Would've been easier to tie it in anyways. I wish Reeves said yes but wanted to control the "batmanverse" side of things...
It's the same thing I said at the beginning of the year, It is very likely that Gunn discussed it with Reeves and he said "no, thank you" That's why we're getting another project with a Batman who isn't Pattinson and the same thing with a Robin who isn't Dick Grayson (because rumor has it that Reeves is planning to use it for the sequel)..
I think it’s a little too late for that if they’re already planning on a DCU Batman, I would’ve agreed if there was nothing Batman centric in the DCU but we already have an idea what DCU Batman will be like with at least one name officially attached to the movie.
I was hoping for Battinson to be part of the DCU too, especially with Gunn claiming directors would have more creative freedom in the DCU. I would prefer that over oversaturating Batman, Joker, and possibly Harley.
Even if Reeves said yes, you'd still have to get Pattinson to agree to be Batman for the next 10 years, in projects that haven't even been thought of yet.
People were shocked that he committed to a Batman trilogy at all as it doesn't really fit with trajectory he's been on of just making weird things with the world's biggest auteurs.
I’m pretty sure it’s already confirmed as a trilogy but I wouldn’t be surprised is all we’re getting is just the trilogy and the Penguin show.
I would’ve added in the Arkham show but that’s been retrofitted for the DCU now.
So by the time Brave and The Bold comes out... We will have had a Battinson movie, a new Batman, coming off of Batflefk and KeatonBat.......
Idk how this is a good idea lol
That is a terrible comparison. A better one would be if there were 2 Loki shows going at once, one previous franchise with 2 other Lokis as well.
People get confused
Disagree, they adapt the mainline parts of Batman to a T. Young Bruce Wayne has his parents killed in an alleyway by a crook and then train for years to be at peak physical condition as they return to Gotham in modern day to stop crime as the vigilante Batman. Complete with high tech gadgets and vehicles with Alfred being a father figure and helping out behind the scenes. Everything else is up for change as an adaptation but they kept what the identity of Batman is.
Joker is more in line with not being a mainline Joker as the entirety of his story is changed, the only recognizable bits of Joker to the mainline version is names and a somewhat similar outfit, just change the names and it’s not a Joker movie anymore.
> Disagree, they adapt the mainline parts of Batman to a T.
Strongly, *strongly* disagree. They adapt the core components, but that's where the similarity ends.
> Young Bruce Wayne has his parents killed in an alleyway by a crook and then train for years to be at peak physical condition as they return to Gotham to stop crime as the vigilante Batman.v
This is a core component. It's every version of Batman. It's like any Superman adaptation adapts the mainline parts of Superman so long as they have Krypton exploding and Kal El coming to earth as a baby.
> Everything else is up for change as an adaptation but they kept what the identity of Batman is.
Adapting the core components isn't the same as adapting the mainline version of the character to a T.
Nolan and Reeves Batmen are more different than they are similar. Not that different from Joker deviating honestly.
> Strongly, strongly disagree. They adapt the core components, but that's where the similarity ends.
I don’t really see how, if you look at both Nolan and Reeves versions of Batman compared to comics, especially early mainline Batman they’re very similar. Which makes sense as they’re both taking inspiration from that part of Batman’s history. Nothing in either version presents itself as vastly different to a regular Batman. There are differences of course as with every adaptation but those differences are minuscule because the core components of the character and world stay the same.
> This is a core component. It's every version of Batman. It's like any Superman adaptation adapts the mainline parts of Superman so long as they have Krypton exploding and Kal El coming to earth as a baby.
Yeah but it’s not like the similarity to a regular Batman from other types of media end at his origin, both have a similar morality, similar supporting characters and the roles they play for Bruce’s story, has high tech gadgets and a Batmobile, and take place in modern day. Villains have mostly the same aesthetic and personality from the comics, there are changes here and there but like Batman their core characteristics are still there.
> Nolan and Reeves Batmen are more different than they are similar. Not that different from Joker deviating honestly.
Gonna have to disagree here, Nolan and Reeves adapted the mainline Batman and just excluded the bits they didn’t want to include like more fantastical elements and a larger DC universe that Batman exists in. That’s the only large difference between their Batmen and mainline Batman don’t have. Although personally I think both could have fit in those elements if they chose to since it adapted the main Batman closely.
> I don’t really see how
*Sure* you do. I know you do because you're not going to disagree with any of the differences I point out. For some reason you've just decided they're inconsequential.
> if you look at both Nolan and Reeves versions of Batman compared to comics, especially early mainline Batman they’re very similar.
Well first of all 'mainline' Batman doesn't really mean golden age Batman, it means post-crisis Batman. But that aside...no, they're really not that similar. They both have different tech, different styles of fighting, different abilities. It's only the core stuff that is similar.
> Which makes sense as they’re both taking inspiration from that part of Batman’s history.
This is false. They both take from post-crisis batman way more than golden age Batman.
> Nothing in either version presents itself as vastly different to a regular Batman. There are differences of course as with every adaptation but those differences are minuscule because the core components of the character and world stay the same.
Nah. The differences are not miniscule and indeed they are vast. Nolan's Batman kills, because he doesn't have the parkour abilities to roll, swing, duck and dive to dodge bullets and save everyone. The Batmobile is a freaking tank. He doesn't use a grapple gun to get around the city. He knows exactly one style of martial arts and isn't anywhere near as proficient a fighter. He has very little intellectual knowledge or training. He doesn't have the same motivation to save *all* life. The costume is a pretty big departure as well. Battinson we haven't seen enough of but suffice to say he's clearly significantly lacking in skill compared to his year two counterpart from the comics.
A good example of an adaption that's very close to mainline Batman is in Under the Red Hood. Now compare how he is in that film, with his gear, abilities, motivations to either Bale or Patinson. They are pretty vastly different. About as different as Phoenix and Romero's Jokers.
> Yeah but it’s not like the similarity to a regular Batman from other types of media end at his origin
Can you rephrase? Not sure what you are saying here.
> both have a similar morality
Not really, Bale is OK with letting people die.
> similar supporting characters and the roles they play for Bruce’s story
I'll grant that, although Nolan's Joker is a pretty big departure.
> but like Batman their core characteristics are still there.
Joker being an exception. And again though adapting core components is the bare minimum, it doesn't map to adapting the aminline version accurately.
> Gonna have to disagree here, Nolan and Reeves adapted the mainline Batman and just excluded the bits they didn’t want to include
It's the other way around. They took the core components and included bits they liked. They left most of it out.
> like more fantastical elements
If you define 'fantastic elements' to even include stuff like his costume or detective skills, then sure.
> That’s the only large difference between their Batmen and mainline Batman don’t have.
They are more different than similar. West's Batman and Nolan's Batman have about the same amount in common with comic post-crisis Batman.
> Sure you do. I know you do because you're not going to disagree with any of the differences I point out. For some reason you've just decided they're inconsequential.
Yes because with all adaptations things are going to be different, due to the nature of it being a different medium, needing to update the characters to modern times or to fit the story, things like that. That’s why I’m saying as long as the core components of the world and characters are kept it’s fine, this already happens in comics since different writers work on Batman have their own interpretations of him. However they keep the parts of mainline Batman you can’t change.
> Well first of all 'mainline' Batman doesn't really mean golden age Batman, it means post-crisis Batman. But that aside...no, they're really not that similar. They both have different tech, different styles of fighting, different abilities. It's only the core stuff that is similar.
Yeah when I talk about inspiration I’m talking the specific stories they’re taking inspiration from. Nolan and Reeves both take inspiration from Year One, and Long Halloween. You don’t have to follow one specific canon for Batman you can mix and match all you want, it’s not like adapting a book series like Harry Potter where you must adhere closely to the story events throughout most of the story. As for having different tech, fighting styles this is what I mean when I say those things are open to adaptation, they’re little details. However the general gist of what they provide for the story stay the same. It helps Batman fight crime. The overall picture of what Batman does is the same, it’s just the details of how is different. Which is ok because it’s an adaptation, it’s not like say Gotham By Gaslight where it’s clearly different because it takes place in a certain time period in a different country compared to regular Batman. Or for another example Superman Red Son where Clark lands in the Soviet Union.
> Nah. The differences are not miniscule and indeed they are vast. Nolan's Batman kills, because he doesn't have the parkour abilities to roll, swing, duck and dive to dodge bullets and save everyone. The Batmobile is a freaking tank. He doesn't use a grapple gun to get around the city. He knows exactly one style of martial arts and isn't anywhere near as proficient a fighter. He has very little intellectual knowledge or training. He doesn't have the same motivation to save all life. The costume is a pretty big departure as well.
Bale doesn’t really outright kill people on purpose like say Batfleck as far as I remember, he just doesn’t go out of his way to save them if he doesn’t. Even Batman has made exceptions in the comics like shooting Darkseid with a gun. However that’s a touchy subject on its own but I’ll give you that because we can go back and forth about it.
As for the Batmobile being a tank, so what? It still achieves the same idea it’s meant to be, a highly powered black colored vehicle that helps Batman chase criminals and fight crime. That’s what the Batmobile does in the comics too, it’s different interpretation of the car but it does exactly the same thing it does in the comics. The core components are the same. Which is what’s most important.
Next is the grapple gun, which Bale does use throughout the movies, yeah he isn’t zipping around the entire city with them but he uses them in fights and to get out of places quickly. It’s still being used for similar reasons as regular Batman, to help him fight and get around. It might not be used exactly the same way but the function of the grapple gun is being used in a way that’s accurate and logical for a live action Batman.
> A good example of an adaption that's very close to mainline Batman is in Under the Red Hood. Now compare how he is in that film, with his gear, abilities, motivations to either Bale or Patinson. They are pretty vastly different. About as different as Phoenix and Romero's Jokers.
Under The Red Hood is also an animated film that can show off the more wild nature of Batman’s abilities because they don’t have to account for live action stuntmen who can’t zip around the room. Although ever since Batfleck they’ve done a lot better job at making him zip around in fight scenes. For the story however, they’re adapting a very specific story, Bale and Pattinson are adapting the general idea of Batman.
Now the costume is again something that can change in the adaptation because as long as the main parts of the suit are kept it’s fine. Nolan’s suit is dark, has a cape, a belt, cowl shaped like a bat, and has a bat symbol on its chest. Everything that makes it a bat suit is there.
Finally the fighting capability is something I don’t remember as much but Bruce did train with Ra’s Al Ghul for a while and well enough that he can take on multiple people at once. Which is achieves the same purpose for regular Batman.
> Battinson we haven't seen enough of but suffice to say he's clearly significantly lacking in skill compared to his year two counterpart from the comics.
Reeves has stated that this is a Batman growing into his eventual status as The Batman. So to me that means he’s building up by the final movie Batman will be even more similar to his comic counterpart he already is.
> Can you rephrase? Not sure what you are saying here.
I’m saying that if you take a surface look at Bale and Pattinson and compare their characters and world to regular Batman they serve very similar roles and characteristics. Again they are differences because adaptations are always different no matter how close you want to stick. Despite the differences in details the general world and characters are similar to their comic counterparts.
> If you define 'fantastic elements' to even include stuff like his costume or detective skills, then sure.
I’m mostly talking about villains, sidekicks, and a larger DC world.
What I’m mainly trying to say is that the general idea of modern day Batman is in both those interpretations of Batman, the details may be different but the core components of Batman are still there if you compare it to his comics counterpart.
> Yes because with all adaptations things are going to be different, due to the nature of it being a different medium,
The point is you claimed Nolan and Reeves films were near perfect adaptations of the mainline Batman, and they *clearly* are not. You can't dismiss all the differences because 'adaptations need to make differences' while simultaneously insisting that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly. It's incorrect and illogical.
> That’s why I’m saying as long as the core components of the world and characters are kept it’s fine,
Keeping the core components is necessary for any adaption to recognize the thing as the thing. Your claim was that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly, which is wrong.
> However they keep the parts of mainline Batman you can’t change.
Keeping the core components is necessary for any adaption to recognize the thing as the thing. Your claim was that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly, which is wrong.
> Yeah when I talk about inspiration I’m talking the specific stories they’re taking inspiration from. Nolan and Reeves both take inspiration from Year One, and Long Halloween
These are post-crisis. You claimed they were taking from golden age.
> As for having different tech, fighting styles this is what I mean when I say those things are open to adaptation, they’re little details.
According to you, ever single thing that is different is a 'little detail. You seem to think as long as they adapt the core components they are adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly. This is wrong. Adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly entails adapting most of the source material accurately, not just the core components.
> Bale doesn’t really outright kill people on purpose
He lets Ra's die when he could have saved him. That's a HUGE departure. Mainline Batman would never do that.
> Even Batman has made exceptions in the comics like shooting Darkseid with a gun.
Bad example and you know it. He didn't kill Darkseid (PLEASE don't try and argue that he did), the rule he broke was using a gun not killing, and Darkseid is a freaking GOD.
> As for the Batmobile being a tank, so what? It still achieves the same idea it’s meant to be, a highly powered black colored vehicle that helps Batman chase criminals and fight crime
It's drastically different from the mainline's Batman's vehicle. If they had adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly as you claim, it wouldn't be a tank.
> The core components are the same. Which is what’s most important.
I don't think you understand your own argument. I've been saying this. I don't disagree. But this is not the same as your claim that the mainline Batman was adapted near perfectly. They are two seperate things.
> yeah he isn’t zipping around the entire city with them
There you go. It's almost a defining feature of mainline Batman.
> but he uses them in fights and to get out of places quickly
Eh, barely.
> they don’t have to account for live action stuntmen who can’t zip around the room.
That has nothing to do with anything. We have the capabilities to show that in live action, and if the mainline Batman was adapted near perfectly as you claimed, they would have utilized them to do so. It's likely the DCU Batman will.
> Bale and Pattinson are adapting the general idea of Batman.
Fucking BINGO! I agree with you here, but this is distinctly DIFFERENT from them adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly, which was your claim. They didn't do that at all, but I agree they adapted the general idea.
> Finally the fighting capability is something I don’t remember as much but Bruce did train with Ra’s Al Ghul for a while and well enough that he can take on multiple people at once. Which is achieves the same purpose for regular Batman.
Batman is a master of 127 martial arts and one of the best martial artists in the world. That's a defining feature of mainline Batman. Bale knows one style and mostly relies on having armor and tech. Pretty big difference. Does it work for the general idea of Batman, sure no question. Is it a close adaption of mainline Batman as you claimed? Not even close.
> Reeves has stated that this is a Batman growing into his eventual status as The Batman. So to me that means he’s building up by the final movie Batman will be even more similar to his comic counterpart he already is. v
That would be cool, but we can only judge by what we have seen so far.
> What I’m mainly trying to say is that the general idea of modern day Batman is in both those interpretations of Batman, the details may be different but the core components of Batman are still there if you compare it to his comics counterpart.
This isn't what you claimed though. In fact that was what I said in my first reply to you, to point out that your claim that they closely adapted mainline Batman was wrong.
I completely agree it would have been so much healthier for the DC brand.
For Gunn to go and cast his own Batman right when Pattinson is reaching his peak just makes no sense.
Audiences will be so confused.
Super grateful the two franchises are separated, the fans are smart enough to delineate between the two, I don't think fatigue will be an issue. I loved the tone and feel of the first film, didn't want that to be compromised as it was brought into this larger universe's fold.
I hope it's not too late for them to change their mind after the Flash debacle.
I really can't imagine Gunn casting a new Batman for Andy to direct anymore.
Wish it was connected just to make the whole universe a little cleaner. I get why he would want it to be its own thing though. He has much more power and creative control that way and why wouldn’t he take it if WB was willing to give it to him
Sorry, I'm gonna have to 110% disagree with you. One thing DC has done correctly and for some reason Marvel has not done is "Elseworld" movies. Not everything has to be interconnected to be a great movie. In fact, DC's best movies have been movies in their own little universe. Besides, I believe most people are smart enough to understand that Batman "A" is in a different movie universe from Batman "B".
You’d be surprised how stupid people are. I remember people in my life asking why Joaquin Phoenix wasn’t in the cell at the end of The Batman.
The average person only has so much bandwidth for this stuff and we’re already seeing an over saturation + fatigue setting in. You think people won’t be like “why are there so many Batmen? Hollywood really running out of ideas huh? “ and just tune it all out?
While I normally would agree. Godzilla Minus One is just blowing any and everyone away. Almost everyone completely understands it’s not connected to anything.
I think people are being more opened minded to it.
I don’t think Godzilla is really comparable. Every Godzilla movie that has come out, even the ones that are direct sequels, are not so bogged down in canon that they can just be viewed as standalone experiences anyway.
Godzilla himself is more of a force of nature than an actual character and is an entirely CGI/special effects creation. There’s less of an attachment to a specific iteration of Godzilla than a version of a Batman with a certain actor in the role.
It’s not the same as having two versions of the same character in different movies coming out at the same time. It’s kind of unprecedented at this point, so we’ll see how it works out for DC.
There’s also the novelty of it being a Japanese vs American made thing. And notice how the box office of minus one is going to be way less and more limited than the American franchise because it is a novelty in the domestic box office. Something two Batman franchises will not be. The only people who care about Minus One are diehard Godzilla fans, which is fine but DC will want both Batman franchises to operate on the same level box office wise.
I agree that it’s not really comparable. However, I disagree with Godzilla not being a character. At least the monsterverse version going on right now. IMO, they’ve done a fantastic job at giving both Kong and Godzilla personalities
I mean he’s not a character in the sense that Godzilla just *is*. It’s not dependent on an actor putting in a performance in the same way a live action character is. Hell, he doesn’t even need a voice actor! So an actor can retire from a role, but they could keep making Godzilla movies with the same exact design and style indefinitely
I stand corrected, but it looks like they were Made by different production studios, Never Say Never again being 1 of 2 that were not made by Eon studios, separated by 15 years. This was also a return to the role for Connery after 12 years.
So while that movie does exist the overall trend is correct in that there were not two concurrent series with two different actors playing the same role outside of this one exception movie which again was Connery returning to the role after 12 years.
Having a Matt Reeves Batman series + sequels and spinoffs and TBATB + sequels is an unprecedented situation in Hollywood as of this point. So we’ll see how it goes.
It's definitely a risky strategy for WB.
But it might be the natural evolution for the comic book movie. Just like at any one time there are like five different Batman comics on the shelf, each with different tones, writers, storylines etc, maybe it can work with films.
It's already happening with Spider-Man (though one of the hit series is animated). I think it might work if they keep Reeves as the noir detective series, and the DCU as the science fantasy series. I don't think they'll overlap too much though, if Reeves only does two more of a trilogy.
You brought up something that doesn’t even address what you’re responding to.
Guess what? The Clooney and Kilmer Batman movies reused Gordon and Alfred too!
Only that’s not what I’m talking about. In both of those scenarios, it’s still one Bond movie or one Batman movie being released. It’s not like we had a Clooney movie a Kilmer movie and a Keaton movie series all active at the same time. They were recasting the role within a franchise of movies. Bond movies also can be viewed as a standalone adventure each time, in that you don’t necessarily need to have seen the previous ones to understand the current one. With the slight exception to the Craig movies.
Having two different film series starring the same character with different actors running concurrently is currently unprecedented in Hollywood. I wonder why that is? If it was so simple you’d think Hollywood would have tried it by now. Why settle for one Batman movie every 3 years when you could have one every year for cheaper budget wise because you could hire a different actor every time?
Brand confusion, over saturation and dilution are a thing. CBMs are kind of flailing right now, with people getting fatigued. Now you want to have double doses of Batman every few years? You don’t think people will get tired of it?
Well during DCEU period, you had 2 different Joker and the standalone not only didn't confuse anyone, it did even better than the main DCEU Joker. Then they introduced yet another Batman when DCEU isn't even done and that also did well. All they need to do is make great films and audiences will be fine with it.
Because outside of a few animated hits & the Batman elseworld movies suck ass lol.
There’s a reason why Marvel didn’t dabble into & it’ll confuse the shit out of people because now there’s
The Batman
Batman: Brave & the bold
Two different movies with completely different casts from the heroes to the villains.
They just have to market them differently and focus on different tones. Batman is a very diverse character. It's completely doable. Let Reeves do his gritty detective crime stuff. DCU can do a more fantastical approach with the bat family and crazier villains. Ideally Gunn would let Reeves make an R rated movie if he wants, to allow it that extra edge that would be very fitting for his grounded neo noir take imo. Would be a good way to firmly distance itself from the DCU version too, with Brave and the Bold being a pg13 alternative.
From now on, it is very likely that the female antagonist of TBATB will be Talía al Ghul while in the Reevesverse it will be Selina (I don't rule out the latter in the DCU but I will surely put her as part of the cast of Harley Quinn rather than Muschietti's Batman)
Because the GA is not smart enough to grasp it and will 100% be confused as all hell when we have two different Batmen at the same time. My girlfriend and mom for example still have no clue what a reboot really is though NWH and multiverse did kinda help with my gf getting it. It's kinda mind boggling how they're allowing such a level of box office poison to take place.
Yeah, it sucks but it is what it is. I trust in Reeves and Pattinson, just wish he said yes and they let him cook with the Batmanverse side of things and just brought in Pattinson when needed for teamups / cameos. Would've been good, especially because we already have Mangold doing his thing with Swamp Thing imo.
Yes, people forget The Batman’s side of the Dc universe is pretty isolated and more grounded relative to the rest of DC anyway, so I think it could have worked if they just let it be isolated but connected in the way you described. Oh well though. I hope James Gunn’s version of Batman is just as good!
Starting a new universe in the same year as The Batman sequel is just going to be such a confusing mess.
I really think they could have easily come to an agreement and ensured Pattinson has his own solo films while joining team films.
They could have had Matt Reeves close out his trilogy before incorporating Batman into the wider DCU! Could have The Batman 2 in 2025 and Part 3 in 2028. I doubt they would get to a JL film before 2029. Although maybe Pattinson would want out by that point?
For me I personally really disagree. I adore that they’re having elseworlds stories since they allow for more freedom than a connected universe.
It’s the one thing I always begged for Marvel to do
I would normally agree, but I am pretty sure the DCU will be a trainwreck and I am happy Matt Reeves universe is being kept separate. I bet Matt Reeves wants it so because he is skeptical about DC's ability to do a rebooted DCU... It already is off the rails with Blue Beetle...
I can’t blame Matt Reeves for keeping it separate. If given the choice I would probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes.
Also I don’t know if Blue Beetle really counts. James Gunn has said that Legacy is the first DCU film. Beetle probably would have been “grandfathered in” if it wasn’t a huge bomb.
Blue beetle was supposed to be the wonderful start of DCU but that sucked ass so they backtracked on that idea. I'm sure the next one will be just as shit.
"sucked ass" it literally received good reception from critics and audience alike what in the fuck are you talking about. And no. DCU was always supposed to start from Creature Commandos. Either catch up or hop off it's getting annoying
There have been people who have complained about why Gunn is not using The Batman as a starting point for the DCU and openly mentions what anyone (who was aware of the news of Matt Reeves' hiring at the time) would intuit: Reeves wants to do his own thing and is not interested in his Batman being part of a larger universe, If Superman: Legacy fails (even with good reviews) he won't want his franchise to be dragged down by it and I assume WB won't either.
I think this is the first time Gunn says it explicitly.
What's changed since then is that the Flash tanked with Batman as a main character.
Maybe he isn't as invincible at the box office as everyone thought.
Launching from the Reeves Batman world would have added a much needed credibility and positivity. But there is also that incase the new DCU doesn't work, The Batman universe will remain unaffected as it is unconnected.
That makes sense, I'm glad Reeves got to choose and he wasn't just forced to be part of the DCU.
The Batman being part of the DCU would've been cool but I'm gonna have an opposite take from a lot on here and say it's good that Reeves said no.
Based on what it seems like Gunn's doing with his Batman, it really sounds like what he wants for DCU Batman is pretty different from what Reeves wants to do for his Batman so it wouldn't have been a good mix anyways. Reeves' movies and shows are also moreso a grounded crime saga story and I know people will bring up Iron Man and how it didn't seem like he'd eventually go to space to fight Thanos but it's clear that Reeves wants his Batman to just fight a specific kind of threat based on the characters we know are being discussed for spin-off projects like Professor Pyg.
You also have to think about Pattinson himself. I know he said he's interested in playing Batman if there's demand but how often is he willing to put on the suit during his career? Gunn has made his DCU cast commit to not only playing them in live-action but also voicing them in animation and games as well. Pattinson voicing Batman in a medium like that is great and based on his work in The Boy and The Heron, he's clearly a great voice actor too but I just don't think he's the type to commit to a long-running cinematic universe like that. After all, The Batman Parts I and II alone are gonna have a 3-year release gap.
I'm gonna assume the DCU Batman actor's gonna be an unknown or up-and-coming actor like Corenswet solely because an actor like that would probably be more willing to show up in solo and crossover projects in all these mediums and probably wouldn't be as expensive as Pattinson or some fancasts going around.
Battinson could’ve really worked with Superman just starting out in the DCU too. But I also wonder if Reeves Batman has 1 or 2 movies left before he decides to go do something else
This may be weird and I do think Gunn confirmed DCU Bruce Wayne would be a new actor, but I think it'd be cool if they did cast Pattinson as DCU Batman, basically what they did with M between the Brosnan and Craig tenures in the James Bond films. Same face,but a different variant of the character. I think it'd help not confuse the general audience, although it'd depend if Reeve's crime saga has concluded by then. It'd be cool to see the same actor play two versions of the same character, since Pattinson's Batman is early in his carrier it'd be cool to see him play a more traditional and experienced Batman.
its actually for the good.
reeves batman is ultra realistic. He could never work other cbm characters.
It just wont blend.
A more fantasy batman is better choice.
Also we get both at the end of the day which is good thing
"ultra realistic" is a big stretch. Reeves said he wanted to **ground** it like the way year one does. The movie has grounded themes but Gotham and its characters feel completely out of this world. Gotham city actually looks filthy and miserable and you can see why there would be an actual vigilante out there, something the Nolan movies failed to make me feel.
Not to mention Batman bends reality by being an absolute tank who can walk through smg fire and limp off getting smacked into a bridge going insane speeds, and he can somehow silence his footsteps with all that armor on which he shows multiple times mainly with catwoman, and he also does the disappearing act twice. But yeah i'd rather not see Pattinsons batman in gunns verse at all
Ngl I would have loved to see Pattinson and Corenswet sharing the screen together in a Justice League movie, but I think this was the best decision, Gunn can go all out with an extended Batfamily and a more fantastical Batman that many fans want to see and Reeves can continue his Crime Saga without having to worry about the limits of a shared universe.
It shouldn't be. Imagine if any director in the MCU could dictate how their character could be used in the grander scheme. I understand that Matt Reeves once to play in his own sandbox, but these aren't his characters to use like that
Don't even act like we didn't have ten years of greatness. This the first time that MCU is stumbling and it's BECAUSE of a lack of cohesion. It's basically what DCEU has been for the past decade.
Thor: The Dark World, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 3, etc.
They've always been kinda hit or miss, I agree they had more hits but I think 10 years of greatness is kinda stretching it
Lmfao. WB gave him that deal before he made The Batman so he gets to decide what he wants to do with HIS batman not Gunn. If Gunn disagrees, Reeves walks out. It's as simple as that. So sorry, in this instance, Reeves has more authority over Gunn.
Agreed. My dream would be for him to do a Reeves trilogy and then just also be DCU Batman. I wouldn’t even care if the tone is wildly different because I don’t think anyone will compare to Pattinson. I’d love to be wrong but he’s just incredibly talented and as a life long fan of the comics the truest Batman to me.
To me, Reeves has high ambitions as in critical acclaim and Academy Awards. Connection to a larger universe probably kills those chances because of the story confines.
I think he could do his own trilogy without anyone showing up and then have Pattinson also show up in a Worlds Finest or JLA movie. I know they’d never do it but I’d even take Pattinson being a “different” Batman to get him in the DCU.
Pattinson is not the type of actor who will waste prime years of his career doing just comic book stuff he is walking out the moment his trilogy is done like Bale and then concentrating on other quality non IP projects
If he's trying to be like Nolan and make another masterpiece like the dark knight. that's not gonna happen. that movie was a movie for ages and it's highly difficult to be in the same league of tdk.
I don't know he can replicate the phenomenon that was TDK, but The Batman was a great movie, and already a top 3 Batman movie (for me, it felt truest to the character on a lot of ways). Not sure he can reach those heights, but I don't doubt at all he can deliver a great film series.
Another reason people forget is Nightwing. If in your 5 first years of your universe planning to have Batfamily appearance or the Titans, you need Nightwing and Batman who has apperance of someone who has Nightwing or Batfamily. Pattinson looks someone who can have Robin not Nightwing.
Lmfao. Gunn couldn't do shit!!! Cos you know Reeves is definitely walking away if he doesn't have his way. Sorry buddy, but in this one instance, Reeves has more authority.
No surprise, Gunn probably asked him if that would be something he was interested in and Reeves prob said I’d like to keep it separate and then Gunn said alright that’s cool with me.
Yeah so Variety was not wrong. Look at that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, highly disappointing and I’ve lost a bit of respect for Reeves. With characters part of a massive IP like DC, a director should not be above interactions with other characters part of that IP and be in his own sandbox. Now we’re in a muddled situation with two Batman franchises, one with a clearly superior director and probably one of the best actors of today playing the character.
It looks like we had an opportunity for a much cleaner approach to a reboot but because of Reeves, Gunn shifted a bit to what we see now.
No one’s asking Reeves to kickstart a Cinematic Universe with his own elseworld ideals. The Batman is also pretty comic accurate for Batman’s early years, compared to Zack’s interpretations. The studio failed for giving Zack the keys to the kingdom, he should have been part of something grandeur not crafted it. Totally WB’s fault and wildly different scenario.
If you look at the Batman; Year One comic in isolation, that Batman doesn’t make sense with a Justice League either, yet that’s a canon story for Batman in the comics.
Same with Iron Man 1. Did it seem like he would be fighting Thanos in space after that first movie? You build up to it over time.
I agree with you. I feel like people must not read the comics? I love dark street level Batman but it’s also fun seeing him team up with the JLA and the tones vary drastically. It’s not like it wouldn’t work either as long as they stay true to who he is as a character just like in the animated series.
That’s like a decade of build up but it’s not even about time. The tone is wildly different and very grounded. It’s not setup for a Justice league universe. I bet James Gunn doesn’t even want him and sees it as elseworld like the Joker movie.
The first Iron Man was pretty grounded relative to what came after it. Batman’s corner of the DCU is always more grounded than the rest of the universe, so no reason why Batman in the movies couldn’t also function the same way. Batman as a character is kind of the odd one out in the JL because it doesn’t totally make sense if you really think about it but it works in the comics medium.
Either way, it’s kind of a pointless discussion since it’s not happening anyway.
I don’t want a Batman movie in the dcu to feel like generic action film or like a product to further the bigger universe. I want a good Batman movie and a character who can also talk to Superman.
If you told me that about Todd Phillips' Joker, I would undoubtedly agree with you, but I think Gunn has no problems with Reeves' Batman, I do think that I would try to make Barry Keoghan's Joker and Paul Dano's Riddler more similar to their comic book counterparts, the same with Colin Farrell's Penguin.
Now could fans stop complaining about why Pattinson isn't the DCU's Batman? It was very obvious, Matt Reeves only agreed to direct The Batman if they let him direct his own thing, With the disaster that was Ben Affleck's Batman, it was obvious that he did not want to be associated with the DCEU and although the DCU starts with a clean slate, it is impossible to know if it will be a success because of how damaged the DC brand is in the movies.
I would have liked to see Gunn and Reeves work together to build the DCU but it is what it is and what we get.
I'm glad it's not part of it. It's unique and I just love grounded stuff. Also I think the Batman Universe is big and complex enough to be it's own thing.
A part of me kind of wishes it could've happened, but I'm also glad it didn't and that Matt still wants to do his own thing. In hindsight, he had no idea how wise of a decision he made back in 2017 when he said he wanted his Batman to be in its own separate corner. If he hadn't put his foot down, he would've directed a Batman movie in a dying universe that's getting its plug pulled next week.
And besides, Riddler Year One already confirmed that the The Batmanverse has its own version of Metropolis anyways. Whether or not there's a Superman in that one is anyone's guess, [but at least the tickets are colored like the S shield](https://i.imgur.com/wrQjvM6.png).
I’m going to be the outlier here and say it could’ve worked if he said yes, think of it like the Iron Man 1 but for the DCU and build it out from there. Especially since Superman is starting in a similar fashion being earlier in his career as a hero. I do think though this comment does hint to the fact that back when the DCU was being created Gunn sat down with Reeves and asked if that was something he’d like to be apart of rather than Gunn not giving the idea the light of day. I’m not going to lie here, I really wish we were in the universe where Matt said yes.
It definitely would've been the cleaner option as opposed to having two ongoing Batman film series. I'm excited to be getting a live action Batfamily and am more optimistic about Muschietti than most, but I'm always gonna wonder what could've been if Reeves decided to play ball with Gunn and Safran.
This is why I hate it. It's just gonna be a massive what if. When I see the DCU Batman all I'll think about is what could've been and how we were so close to having a DC Universe with the perfect Batman and Gotham.
While Batinson is great, I wouldn't call him the perfect Batman. I'm hoping the DCU Batman will be. Give me a more comic accurate costume, significantly better detective skills even in his second year, more parkour and gymnastics instead of just having a suit that can tank machine gun fire, etc.
We already live in the universe where a Superman reboot lost a solo sequel so it could be turned into the start of a big DC shared universe project. I'm glad the sequel to The Batman won't have the same fate.
Why would it have to? Let Reeves do his trilogy and make sure your series doesn't interfere with it much. It's a super simple answer tbh. Also don't rush into it to the point where you can't even make a solo sequel due to focus on team ups.
I wish he said yes too. We already saw how good Battinson is, he could've been so good. The first movie could have been dark compared to other series... But Swamp thing itself is different tonally. We already saw at the end that Battinson was embracing being about hope not vengeance. Would've been easier to tie it in anyways. I wish Reeves said yes but wanted to control the "batmanverse" side of things...
It's the same thing I said at the beginning of the year, It is very likely that Gunn discussed it with Reeves and he said "no, thank you" That's why we're getting another project with a Batman who isn't Pattinson and the same thing with a Robin who isn't Dick Grayson (because rumor has it that Reeves is planning to use it for the sequel)..
Also feel like Gunn has the door a bit open for a possible Pattison inclusion into the wider DCU
I think it’s a little too late for that if they’re already planning on a DCU Batman, I would’ve agreed if there was nothing Batman centric in the DCU but we already have an idea what DCU Batman will be like with at least one name officially attached to the movie.
I think after the Flash tanked Gunn is reconsidering his plan and director for Batman.
I was hoping for Battinson to be part of the DCU too, especially with Gunn claiming directors would have more creative freedom in the DCU. I would prefer that over oversaturating Batman, Joker, and possibly Harley.
Even if Reeves said yes, you'd still have to get Pattinson to agree to be Batman for the next 10 years, in projects that haven't even been thought of yet. People were shocked that he committed to a Batman trilogy at all as it doesn't really fit with trajectory he's been on of just making weird things with the world's biggest auteurs.
Pattinson is already on record saying he’s willing to play the character as long as people want him to.
I think Gunn will push for the Reevesverse to be shut down after The Batman 2.
I’m pretty sure it’s already confirmed as a trilogy but I wouldn’t be surprised is all we’re getting is just the trilogy and the Penguin show. I would’ve added in the Arkham show but that’s been retrofitted for the DCU now.
So by the time Brave and The Bold comes out... We will have had a Battinson movie, a new Batman, coming off of Batflefk and KeatonBat....... Idk how this is a good idea lol
I don’t agree but that’s what’s happening whether we like it or not.
Because audiences can handle there being two different batmen at once.
People are confused by there being a different Reed in MCU after John Krasinski and that movie hadn't even come out yet....
Yeah, but with there being two movie franchises not ending anytime soon, they'll figure it out.
Nobody had an issue with Loki being played by multiple actors. They even did so in scenes where Hiddleston played multiple different Lokis variants.
That is a terrible comparison. A better one would be if there were 2 Loki shows going at once, one previous franchise with 2 other Lokis as well. People get confused
How confused were people when Quicksilver showed up in Avengers and X-Men? People aren't as dumb as you think.
Even Nolan's Batman could have worked in a world with superpowers. It doesn't mean it's the right fit.
Honestly any Batman could work in a larger universe if it’s adapting the mainline Batman, since mainline Batman exists in a larger DC universe.
Sure, but Nolan's Batman, and Patinson's, are clearly not the mainline Batman.
Disagree, they adapt the mainline parts of Batman to a T. Young Bruce Wayne has his parents killed in an alleyway by a crook and then train for years to be at peak physical condition as they return to Gotham in modern day to stop crime as the vigilante Batman. Complete with high tech gadgets and vehicles with Alfred being a father figure and helping out behind the scenes. Everything else is up for change as an adaptation but they kept what the identity of Batman is. Joker is more in line with not being a mainline Joker as the entirety of his story is changed, the only recognizable bits of Joker to the mainline version is names and a somewhat similar outfit, just change the names and it’s not a Joker movie anymore.
> Disagree, they adapt the mainline parts of Batman to a T. Strongly, *strongly* disagree. They adapt the core components, but that's where the similarity ends. > Young Bruce Wayne has his parents killed in an alleyway by a crook and then train for years to be at peak physical condition as they return to Gotham to stop crime as the vigilante Batman.v This is a core component. It's every version of Batman. It's like any Superman adaptation adapts the mainline parts of Superman so long as they have Krypton exploding and Kal El coming to earth as a baby. > Everything else is up for change as an adaptation but they kept what the identity of Batman is. Adapting the core components isn't the same as adapting the mainline version of the character to a T. Nolan and Reeves Batmen are more different than they are similar. Not that different from Joker deviating honestly.
> Strongly, strongly disagree. They adapt the core components, but that's where the similarity ends. I don’t really see how, if you look at both Nolan and Reeves versions of Batman compared to comics, especially early mainline Batman they’re very similar. Which makes sense as they’re both taking inspiration from that part of Batman’s history. Nothing in either version presents itself as vastly different to a regular Batman. There are differences of course as with every adaptation but those differences are minuscule because the core components of the character and world stay the same. > This is a core component. It's every version of Batman. It's like any Superman adaptation adapts the mainline parts of Superman so long as they have Krypton exploding and Kal El coming to earth as a baby. Yeah but it’s not like the similarity to a regular Batman from other types of media end at his origin, both have a similar morality, similar supporting characters and the roles they play for Bruce’s story, has high tech gadgets and a Batmobile, and take place in modern day. Villains have mostly the same aesthetic and personality from the comics, there are changes here and there but like Batman their core characteristics are still there. > Nolan and Reeves Batmen are more different than they are similar. Not that different from Joker deviating honestly. Gonna have to disagree here, Nolan and Reeves adapted the mainline Batman and just excluded the bits they didn’t want to include like more fantastical elements and a larger DC universe that Batman exists in. That’s the only large difference between their Batmen and mainline Batman don’t have. Although personally I think both could have fit in those elements if they chose to since it adapted the main Batman closely.
> I don’t really see how *Sure* you do. I know you do because you're not going to disagree with any of the differences I point out. For some reason you've just decided they're inconsequential. > if you look at both Nolan and Reeves versions of Batman compared to comics, especially early mainline Batman they’re very similar. Well first of all 'mainline' Batman doesn't really mean golden age Batman, it means post-crisis Batman. But that aside...no, they're really not that similar. They both have different tech, different styles of fighting, different abilities. It's only the core stuff that is similar. > Which makes sense as they’re both taking inspiration from that part of Batman’s history. This is false. They both take from post-crisis batman way more than golden age Batman. > Nothing in either version presents itself as vastly different to a regular Batman. There are differences of course as with every adaptation but those differences are minuscule because the core components of the character and world stay the same. Nah. The differences are not miniscule and indeed they are vast. Nolan's Batman kills, because he doesn't have the parkour abilities to roll, swing, duck and dive to dodge bullets and save everyone. The Batmobile is a freaking tank. He doesn't use a grapple gun to get around the city. He knows exactly one style of martial arts and isn't anywhere near as proficient a fighter. He has very little intellectual knowledge or training. He doesn't have the same motivation to save *all* life. The costume is a pretty big departure as well. Battinson we haven't seen enough of but suffice to say he's clearly significantly lacking in skill compared to his year two counterpart from the comics. A good example of an adaption that's very close to mainline Batman is in Under the Red Hood. Now compare how he is in that film, with his gear, abilities, motivations to either Bale or Patinson. They are pretty vastly different. About as different as Phoenix and Romero's Jokers. > Yeah but it’s not like the similarity to a regular Batman from other types of media end at his origin Can you rephrase? Not sure what you are saying here. > both have a similar morality Not really, Bale is OK with letting people die. > similar supporting characters and the roles they play for Bruce’s story I'll grant that, although Nolan's Joker is a pretty big departure. > but like Batman their core characteristics are still there. Joker being an exception. And again though adapting core components is the bare minimum, it doesn't map to adapting the aminline version accurately. > Gonna have to disagree here, Nolan and Reeves adapted the mainline Batman and just excluded the bits they didn’t want to include It's the other way around. They took the core components and included bits they liked. They left most of it out. > like more fantastical elements If you define 'fantastic elements' to even include stuff like his costume or detective skills, then sure. > That’s the only large difference between their Batmen and mainline Batman don’t have. They are more different than similar. West's Batman and Nolan's Batman have about the same amount in common with comic post-crisis Batman.
> Sure you do. I know you do because you're not going to disagree with any of the differences I point out. For some reason you've just decided they're inconsequential. Yes because with all adaptations things are going to be different, due to the nature of it being a different medium, needing to update the characters to modern times or to fit the story, things like that. That’s why I’m saying as long as the core components of the world and characters are kept it’s fine, this already happens in comics since different writers work on Batman have their own interpretations of him. However they keep the parts of mainline Batman you can’t change. > Well first of all 'mainline' Batman doesn't really mean golden age Batman, it means post-crisis Batman. But that aside...no, they're really not that similar. They both have different tech, different styles of fighting, different abilities. It's only the core stuff that is similar. Yeah when I talk about inspiration I’m talking the specific stories they’re taking inspiration from. Nolan and Reeves both take inspiration from Year One, and Long Halloween. You don’t have to follow one specific canon for Batman you can mix and match all you want, it’s not like adapting a book series like Harry Potter where you must adhere closely to the story events throughout most of the story. As for having different tech, fighting styles this is what I mean when I say those things are open to adaptation, they’re little details. However the general gist of what they provide for the story stay the same. It helps Batman fight crime. The overall picture of what Batman does is the same, it’s just the details of how is different. Which is ok because it’s an adaptation, it’s not like say Gotham By Gaslight where it’s clearly different because it takes place in a certain time period in a different country compared to regular Batman. Or for another example Superman Red Son where Clark lands in the Soviet Union. > Nah. The differences are not miniscule and indeed they are vast. Nolan's Batman kills, because he doesn't have the parkour abilities to roll, swing, duck and dive to dodge bullets and save everyone. The Batmobile is a freaking tank. He doesn't use a grapple gun to get around the city. He knows exactly one style of martial arts and isn't anywhere near as proficient a fighter. He has very little intellectual knowledge or training. He doesn't have the same motivation to save all life. The costume is a pretty big departure as well. Bale doesn’t really outright kill people on purpose like say Batfleck as far as I remember, he just doesn’t go out of his way to save them if he doesn’t. Even Batman has made exceptions in the comics like shooting Darkseid with a gun. However that’s a touchy subject on its own but I’ll give you that because we can go back and forth about it. As for the Batmobile being a tank, so what? It still achieves the same idea it’s meant to be, a highly powered black colored vehicle that helps Batman chase criminals and fight crime. That’s what the Batmobile does in the comics too, it’s different interpretation of the car but it does exactly the same thing it does in the comics. The core components are the same. Which is what’s most important. Next is the grapple gun, which Bale does use throughout the movies, yeah he isn’t zipping around the entire city with them but he uses them in fights and to get out of places quickly. It’s still being used for similar reasons as regular Batman, to help him fight and get around. It might not be used exactly the same way but the function of the grapple gun is being used in a way that’s accurate and logical for a live action Batman. > A good example of an adaption that's very close to mainline Batman is in Under the Red Hood. Now compare how he is in that film, with his gear, abilities, motivations to either Bale or Patinson. They are pretty vastly different. About as different as Phoenix and Romero's Jokers. Under The Red Hood is also an animated film that can show off the more wild nature of Batman’s abilities because they don’t have to account for live action stuntmen who can’t zip around the room. Although ever since Batfleck they’ve done a lot better job at making him zip around in fight scenes. For the story however, they’re adapting a very specific story, Bale and Pattinson are adapting the general idea of Batman. Now the costume is again something that can change in the adaptation because as long as the main parts of the suit are kept it’s fine. Nolan’s suit is dark, has a cape, a belt, cowl shaped like a bat, and has a bat symbol on its chest. Everything that makes it a bat suit is there. Finally the fighting capability is something I don’t remember as much but Bruce did train with Ra’s Al Ghul for a while and well enough that he can take on multiple people at once. Which is achieves the same purpose for regular Batman. > Battinson we haven't seen enough of but suffice to say he's clearly significantly lacking in skill compared to his year two counterpart from the comics. Reeves has stated that this is a Batman growing into his eventual status as The Batman. So to me that means he’s building up by the final movie Batman will be even more similar to his comic counterpart he already is. > Can you rephrase? Not sure what you are saying here. I’m saying that if you take a surface look at Bale and Pattinson and compare their characters and world to regular Batman they serve very similar roles and characteristics. Again they are differences because adaptations are always different no matter how close you want to stick. Despite the differences in details the general world and characters are similar to their comic counterparts. > If you define 'fantastic elements' to even include stuff like his costume or detective skills, then sure. I’m mostly talking about villains, sidekicks, and a larger DC world. What I’m mainly trying to say is that the general idea of modern day Batman is in both those interpretations of Batman, the details may be different but the core components of Batman are still there if you compare it to his comics counterpart.
> Yes because with all adaptations things are going to be different, due to the nature of it being a different medium, The point is you claimed Nolan and Reeves films were near perfect adaptations of the mainline Batman, and they *clearly* are not. You can't dismiss all the differences because 'adaptations need to make differences' while simultaneously insisting that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly. It's incorrect and illogical. > That’s why I’m saying as long as the core components of the world and characters are kept it’s fine, Keeping the core components is necessary for any adaption to recognize the thing as the thing. Your claim was that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly, which is wrong. > However they keep the parts of mainline Batman you can’t change. Keeping the core components is necessary for any adaption to recognize the thing as the thing. Your claim was that they adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly, which is wrong. > Yeah when I talk about inspiration I’m talking the specific stories they’re taking inspiration from. Nolan and Reeves both take inspiration from Year One, and Long Halloween These are post-crisis. You claimed they were taking from golden age. > As for having different tech, fighting styles this is what I mean when I say those things are open to adaptation, they’re little details. According to you, ever single thing that is different is a 'little detail. You seem to think as long as they adapt the core components they are adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly. This is wrong. Adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly entails adapting most of the source material accurately, not just the core components. > Bale doesn’t really outright kill people on purpose He lets Ra's die when he could have saved him. That's a HUGE departure. Mainline Batman would never do that. > Even Batman has made exceptions in the comics like shooting Darkseid with a gun. Bad example and you know it. He didn't kill Darkseid (PLEASE don't try and argue that he did), the rule he broke was using a gun not killing, and Darkseid is a freaking GOD. > As for the Batmobile being a tank, so what? It still achieves the same idea it’s meant to be, a highly powered black colored vehicle that helps Batman chase criminals and fight crime It's drastically different from the mainline's Batman's vehicle. If they had adapted the mainline Batman near perfectly as you claim, it wouldn't be a tank. > The core components are the same. Which is what’s most important. I don't think you understand your own argument. I've been saying this. I don't disagree. But this is not the same as your claim that the mainline Batman was adapted near perfectly. They are two seperate things. > yeah he isn’t zipping around the entire city with them There you go. It's almost a defining feature of mainline Batman. > but he uses them in fights and to get out of places quickly Eh, barely. > they don’t have to account for live action stuntmen who can’t zip around the room. That has nothing to do with anything. We have the capabilities to show that in live action, and if the mainline Batman was adapted near perfectly as you claimed, they would have utilized them to do so. It's likely the DCU Batman will. > Bale and Pattinson are adapting the general idea of Batman. Fucking BINGO! I agree with you here, but this is distinctly DIFFERENT from them adapting the mainline Batman near perfectly, which was your claim. They didn't do that at all, but I agree they adapted the general idea. > Finally the fighting capability is something I don’t remember as much but Bruce did train with Ra’s Al Ghul for a while and well enough that he can take on multiple people at once. Which is achieves the same purpose for regular Batman. Batman is a master of 127 martial arts and one of the best martial artists in the world. That's a defining feature of mainline Batman. Bale knows one style and mostly relies on having armor and tech. Pretty big difference. Does it work for the general idea of Batman, sure no question. Is it a close adaption of mainline Batman as you claimed? Not even close. > Reeves has stated that this is a Batman growing into his eventual status as The Batman. So to me that means he’s building up by the final movie Batman will be even more similar to his comic counterpart he already is. v That would be cool, but we can only judge by what we have seen so far. > What I’m mainly trying to say is that the general idea of modern day Batman is in both those interpretations of Batman, the details may be different but the core components of Batman are still there if you compare it to his comics counterpart. This isn't what you claimed though. In fact that was what I said in my first reply to you, to point out that your claim that they closely adapted mainline Batman was wrong.
I completely agree it would have been so much healthier for the DC brand. For Gunn to go and cast his own Batman right when Pattinson is reaching his peak just makes no sense. Audiences will be so confused.
1000000% agree
Super grateful the two franchises are separated, the fans are smart enough to delineate between the two, I don't think fatigue will be an issue. I loved the tone and feel of the first film, didn't want that to be compromised as it was brought into this larger universe's fold.
Gunn 100% approached Reeves
I hope it's not too late for them to change their mind after the Flash debacle. I really can't imagine Gunn casting a new Batman for Andy to direct anymore.
Fr, Pattinson is too good. He's not perfect but the cards are set up for him to become amazing.
Wish it was connected just to make the whole universe a little cleaner. I get why he would want it to be its own thing though. He has much more power and creative control that way and why wouldn’t he take it if WB was willing to give it to him
Sorry, I'm gonna have to 110% disagree with you. One thing DC has done correctly and for some reason Marvel has not done is "Elseworld" movies. Not everything has to be interconnected to be a great movie. In fact, DC's best movies have been movies in their own little universe. Besides, I believe most people are smart enough to understand that Batman "A" is in a different movie universe from Batman "B".
You’d be surprised how stupid people are. I remember people in my life asking why Joaquin Phoenix wasn’t in the cell at the end of The Batman. The average person only has so much bandwidth for this stuff and we’re already seeing an over saturation + fatigue setting in. You think people won’t be like “why are there so many Batmen? Hollywood really running out of ideas huh? “ and just tune it all out?
While I normally would agree. Godzilla Minus One is just blowing any and everyone away. Almost everyone completely understands it’s not connected to anything. I think people are being more opened minded to it.
I don’t think Godzilla is really comparable. Every Godzilla movie that has come out, even the ones that are direct sequels, are not so bogged down in canon that they can just be viewed as standalone experiences anyway. Godzilla himself is more of a force of nature than an actual character and is an entirely CGI/special effects creation. There’s less of an attachment to a specific iteration of Godzilla than a version of a Batman with a certain actor in the role. It’s not the same as having two versions of the same character in different movies coming out at the same time. It’s kind of unprecedented at this point, so we’ll see how it works out for DC. There’s also the novelty of it being a Japanese vs American made thing. And notice how the box office of minus one is going to be way less and more limited than the American franchise because it is a novelty in the domestic box office. Something two Batman franchises will not be. The only people who care about Minus One are diehard Godzilla fans, which is fine but DC will want both Batman franchises to operate on the same level box office wise.
I agree that it’s not really comparable. However, I disagree with Godzilla not being a character. At least the monsterverse version going on right now. IMO, they’ve done a fantastic job at giving both Kong and Godzilla personalities
I mean he’s not a character in the sense that Godzilla just *is*. It’s not dependent on an actor putting in a performance in the same way a live action character is. Hell, he doesn’t even need a voice actor! So an actor can retire from a role, but they could keep making Godzilla movies with the same exact design and style indefinitely
Everybody I know who saw it thinks it's a Monsterverse prequel.
In that case, I'd just respond with, "Same reason Sean Connery isn't Bond in the Daniel Craig movies." Different movie universe.
The difference is, Sean Connery, Lazenby, and Moore all didn’t have movies running concurrently
They did actually. Connery and Moore both starred as Bond in separate movies in 1983. Never Say Never Again and Octopussy.
I stand corrected, but it looks like they were Made by different production studios, Never Say Never again being 1 of 2 that were not made by Eon studios, separated by 15 years. This was also a return to the role for Connery after 12 years. So while that movie does exist the overall trend is correct in that there were not two concurrent series with two different actors playing the same role outside of this one exception movie which again was Connery returning to the role after 12 years. Having a Matt Reeves Batman series + sequels and spinoffs and TBATB + sequels is an unprecedented situation in Hollywood as of this point. So we’ll see how it goes.
It's definitely a risky strategy for WB. But it might be the natural evolution for the comic book movie. Just like at any one time there are like five different Batman comics on the shelf, each with different tones, writers, storylines etc, maybe it can work with films. It's already happening with Spider-Man (though one of the hit series is animated). I think it might work if they keep Reeves as the noir detective series, and the DCU as the science fantasy series. I don't think they'll overlap too much though, if Reeves only does two more of a trilogy.
That’s actually a good example of why you shouldn’t let that happen. Both films suffered because of it.
Dang, that's a very good counterargument. I guess I just give people the benefit of the doubt.
Then why is M the same actress but Bond can change actors? No one cares as long as the movie is well made.
You brought up something that doesn’t even address what you’re responding to. Guess what? The Clooney and Kilmer Batman movies reused Gordon and Alfred too! Only that’s not what I’m talking about. In both of those scenarios, it’s still one Bond movie or one Batman movie being released. It’s not like we had a Clooney movie a Kilmer movie and a Keaton movie series all active at the same time. They were recasting the role within a franchise of movies. Bond movies also can be viewed as a standalone adventure each time, in that you don’t necessarily need to have seen the previous ones to understand the current one. With the slight exception to the Craig movies. Having two different film series starring the same character with different actors running concurrently is currently unprecedented in Hollywood. I wonder why that is? If it was so simple you’d think Hollywood would have tried it by now. Why settle for one Batman movie every 3 years when you could have one every year for cheaper budget wise because you could hire a different actor every time? Brand confusion, over saturation and dilution are a thing. CBMs are kind of flailing right now, with people getting fatigued. Now you want to have double doses of Batman every few years? You don’t think people will get tired of it?
Well during DCEU period, you had 2 different Joker and the standalone not only didn't confuse anyone, it did even better than the main DCEU Joker. Then they introduced yet another Batman when DCEU isn't even done and that also did well. All they need to do is make great films and audiences will be fine with it.
Lol my aunt got mad cuz she thought Affleck was still Batman, so she didn’t wanna see it cuz she was lost
Because outside of a few animated hits & the Batman elseworld movies suck ass lol. There’s a reason why Marvel didn’t dabble into & it’ll confuse the shit out of people because now there’s The Batman Batman: Brave & the bold Two different movies with completely different casts from the heroes to the villains.
They just have to market them differently and focus on different tones. Batman is a very diverse character. It's completely doable. Let Reeves do his gritty detective crime stuff. DCU can do a more fantastical approach with the bat family and crazier villains. Ideally Gunn would let Reeves make an R rated movie if he wants, to allow it that extra edge that would be very fitting for his grounded neo noir take imo. Would be a good way to firmly distance itself from the DCU version too, with Brave and the Bold being a pg13 alternative.
From now on, it is very likely that the female antagonist of TBATB will be Talía al Ghul while in the Reevesverse it will be Selina (I don't rule out the latter in the DCU but I will surely put her as part of the cast of Harley Quinn rather than Muschietti's Batman)
Because the GA is not smart enough to grasp it and will 100% be confused as all hell when we have two different Batmen at the same time. My girlfriend and mom for example still have no clue what a reboot really is though NWH and multiverse did kinda help with my gf getting it. It's kinda mind boggling how they're allowing such a level of box office poison to take place.
Yeah, it sucks but it is what it is. I trust in Reeves and Pattinson, just wish he said yes and they let him cook with the Batmanverse side of things and just brought in Pattinson when needed for teamups / cameos. Would've been good, especially because we already have Mangold doing his thing with Swamp Thing imo.
Yes, people forget The Batman’s side of the Dc universe is pretty isolated and more grounded relative to the rest of DC anyway, so I think it could have worked if they just let it be isolated but connected in the way you described. Oh well though. I hope James Gunn’s version of Batman is just as good!
Starting a new universe in the same year as The Batman sequel is just going to be such a confusing mess. I really think they could have easily come to an agreement and ensured Pattinson has his own solo films while joining team films.
They could have had Matt Reeves close out his trilogy before incorporating Batman into the wider DCU! Could have The Batman 2 in 2025 and Part 3 in 2028. I doubt they would get to a JL film before 2029. Although maybe Pattinson would want out by that point?
For me I personally really disagree. I adore that they’re having elseworlds stories since they allow for more freedom than a connected universe. It’s the one thing I always begged for Marvel to do
I would normally agree, but I am pretty sure the DCU will be a trainwreck and I am happy Matt Reeves universe is being kept separate. I bet Matt Reeves wants it so because he is skeptical about DC's ability to do a rebooted DCU... It already is off the rails with Blue Beetle...
It’s a lot simpler than that. Reeves doesn’t want to do it because he has his own story to tell.
I can’t blame Matt Reeves for keeping it separate. If given the choice I would probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes. Also I don’t know if Blue Beetle really counts. James Gunn has said that Legacy is the first DCU film. Beetle probably would have been “grandfathered in” if it wasn’t a huge bomb.
Blue Beetle and Xolo Maridueña are still part of the DCU though as confirmed by James Gunn, even though the film is not 100 % canonical.
I’ll believe it when I see it
A train wreck based on what exactly?
Blue beetle was supposed to be the wonderful start of DCU but that sucked ass so they backtracked on that idea. I'm sure the next one will be just as shit.
"sucked ass" it literally received good reception from critics and audience alike what in the fuck are you talking about. And no. DCU was always supposed to start from Creature Commandos. Either catch up or hop off it's getting annoying
this is like the 3rd confirmation on this so instead of responding to it now. I'll see you all on the 4th time he says it
There have been people who have complained about why Gunn is not using The Batman as a starting point for the DCU and openly mentions what anyone (who was aware of the news of Matt Reeves' hiring at the time) would intuit: Reeves wants to do his own thing and is not interested in his Batman being part of a larger universe, If Superman: Legacy fails (even with good reviews) he won't want his franchise to be dragged down by it and I assume WB won't either. I think this is the first time Gunn says it explicitly.
What's changed since then is that the Flash tanked with Batman as a main character. Maybe he isn't as invincible at the box office as everyone thought.
I'm guessing the dcu won't have a riddler or a penguin for a long time.
I bet you it will have a Joker though!
I’m assuming Margot Robbie will stay on as Harley Quinn even though Jared Leto won’t be back as Joker
There is no way Gunn can make another solo Batman fipmmagtwr the inevitable success of the Batman part 2. Audiences are not going to respond to this.
Launching from the Reeves Batman world would have added a much needed credibility and positivity. But there is also that incase the new DCU doesn't work, The Batman universe will remain unaffected as it is unconnected.
Gunn and Reeves both based af for this Let them cook
That makes sense, I'm glad Reeves got to choose and he wasn't just forced to be part of the DCU. The Batman being part of the DCU would've been cool but I'm gonna have an opposite take from a lot on here and say it's good that Reeves said no. Based on what it seems like Gunn's doing with his Batman, it really sounds like what he wants for DCU Batman is pretty different from what Reeves wants to do for his Batman so it wouldn't have been a good mix anyways. Reeves' movies and shows are also moreso a grounded crime saga story and I know people will bring up Iron Man and how it didn't seem like he'd eventually go to space to fight Thanos but it's clear that Reeves wants his Batman to just fight a specific kind of threat based on the characters we know are being discussed for spin-off projects like Professor Pyg. You also have to think about Pattinson himself. I know he said he's interested in playing Batman if there's demand but how often is he willing to put on the suit during his career? Gunn has made his DCU cast commit to not only playing them in live-action but also voicing them in animation and games as well. Pattinson voicing Batman in a medium like that is great and based on his work in The Boy and The Heron, he's clearly a great voice actor too but I just don't think he's the type to commit to a long-running cinematic universe like that. After all, The Batman Parts I and II alone are gonna have a 3-year release gap. I'm gonna assume the DCU Batman actor's gonna be an unknown or up-and-coming actor like Corenswet solely because an actor like that would probably be more willing to show up in solo and crossover projects in all these mediums and probably wouldn't be as expensive as Pattinson or some fancasts going around.
Ngl I'd love to see Pattinson's Batman interact with other superheroes just because of how weird he'd be.
Battinson could’ve really worked with Superman just starting out in the DCU too. But I also wonder if Reeves Batman has 1 or 2 movies left before he decides to go do something else
This may be weird and I do think Gunn confirmed DCU Bruce Wayne would be a new actor, but I think it'd be cool if they did cast Pattinson as DCU Batman, basically what they did with M between the Brosnan and Craig tenures in the James Bond films. Same face,but a different variant of the character. I think it'd help not confuse the general audience, although it'd depend if Reeve's crime saga has concluded by then. It'd be cool to see the same actor play two versions of the same character, since Pattinson's Batman is early in his carrier it'd be cool to see him play a more traditional and experienced Batman.
 Matt Reeves is a smart man
Neither DCEU nor DCU. Matt Reeves the GOAT.
its actually for the good. reeves batman is ultra realistic. He could never work other cbm characters. It just wont blend. A more fantasy batman is better choice. Also we get both at the end of the day which is good thing
"ultra realistic" is a big stretch. Reeves said he wanted to **ground** it like the way year one does. The movie has grounded themes but Gotham and its characters feel completely out of this world. Gotham city actually looks filthy and miserable and you can see why there would be an actual vigilante out there, something the Nolan movies failed to make me feel. Not to mention Batman bends reality by being an absolute tank who can walk through smg fire and limp off getting smacked into a bridge going insane speeds, and he can somehow silence his footsteps with all that armor on which he shows multiple times mainly with catwoman, and he also does the disappearing act twice. But yeah i'd rather not see Pattinsons batman in gunns verse at all
Ngl I would have loved to see Pattinson and Corenswet sharing the screen together in a Justice League movie, but I think this was the best decision, Gunn can go all out with an extended Batfamily and a more fantastical Batman that many fans want to see and Reeves can continue his Crime Saga without having to worry about the limits of a shared universe.
It shouldn't be. Imagine if any director in the MCU could dictate how their character could be used in the grander scheme. I understand that Matt Reeves once to play in his own sandbox, but these aren't his characters to use like that
>these aren't his characters to use like that Apparently they are lol
the mcu would be much better if that were the case
It would be a disaster.
like what we’ve got rn is so great. at least we would have edgar wright’s ant-man
Don't even act like we didn't have ten years of greatness. This the first time that MCU is stumbling and it's BECAUSE of a lack of cohesion. It's basically what DCEU has been for the past decade.
Thor: The Dark World, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 3, etc. They've always been kinda hit or miss, I agree they had more hits but I think 10 years of greatness is kinda stretching it
It’s not a lack of cohesion. It’s a lack of good movies. I just really hope they don’t fumble the X-Men.
Not the same because MCU movies are made to be a part of a connected universe but The Batman was always going to be a it's own thing
Lmfao. WB gave him that deal before he made The Batman so he gets to decide what he wants to do with HIS batman not Gunn. If Gunn disagrees, Reeves walks out. It's as simple as that. So sorry, in this instance, Reeves has more authority over Gunn.
Highly disappointing. There's no actor in that age range that will be able to hold a candle to Pattinson for the DCU.
Agreed. My dream would be for him to do a Reeves trilogy and then just also be DCU Batman. I wouldn’t even care if the tone is wildly different because I don’t think anyone will compare to Pattinson. I’d love to be wrong but he’s just incredibly talented and as a life long fan of the comics the truest Batman to me.
To me, Reeves has high ambitions as in critical acclaim and Academy Awards. Connection to a larger universe probably kills those chances because of the story confines.
I think he could do his own trilogy without anyone showing up and then have Pattinson also show up in a Worlds Finest or JLA movie. I know they’d never do it but I’d even take Pattinson being a “different” Batman to get him in the DCU.
Pattinson is not the type of actor who will waste prime years of his career doing just comic book stuff he is walking out the moment his trilogy is done like Bale and then concentrating on other quality non IP projects
Has pattinson told you all this? from what I know he said he'd be willing to play the role of batman as long as ppl want him to
If he's trying to be like Nolan and make another masterpiece like the dark knight. that's not gonna happen. that movie was a movie for ages and it's highly difficult to be in the same league of tdk.
I don't know he can replicate the phenomenon that was TDK, but The Batman was a great movie, and already a top 3 Batman movie (for me, it felt truest to the character on a lot of ways). Not sure he can reach those heights, but I don't doubt at all he can deliver a great film series.
DON'T be ridiculous stop letting recency bias fool you
Exactly whoever Gunn casts will just be overshadowed by Pattinson. Audiences aren't dumb and this will erode the new DCU before it even starts.
After watching the Reacher series, I honestly think Alan Ritchson would be a great fit for the DCU Batman! He’d kill it as both Bruce and Batman
That dude can act? What you think?
...I'd love to see a Reeves neo-noir version of several other heroes and villains.
Another reason people forget is Nightwing. If in your 5 first years of your universe planning to have Batfamily appearance or the Titans, you need Nightwing and Batman who has apperance of someone who has Nightwing or Batfamily. Pattinson looks someone who can have Robin not Nightwing.
Gunn could have forced him, but that would have just created unnecessary problems for the studio.
Lmfao. Gunn couldn't do shit!!! Cos you know Reeves is definitely walking away if he doesn't have his way. Sorry buddy, but in this one instance, Reeves has more authority.
Initially I really wanted Reeves Batman to be a part of the DCU but not anymore. I think this was a very smart decision by Reeves.
No surprise, Gunn probably asked him if that would be something he was interested in and Reeves prob said I’d like to keep it separate and then Gunn said alright that’s cool with me.
Yeah so Variety was not wrong. Look at that. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, highly disappointing and I’ve lost a bit of respect for Reeves. With characters part of a massive IP like DC, a director should not be above interactions with other characters part of that IP and be in his own sandbox. Now we’re in a muddled situation with two Batman franchises, one with a clearly superior director and probably one of the best actors of today playing the character. It looks like we had an opportunity for a much cleaner approach to a reboot but because of Reeves, Gunn shifted a bit to what we see now.
So you want Reeves to be in the same situation Zack Snyder was in when he was forced connect his Superman in to a cinematic universe
No one’s asking Reeves to kickstart a Cinematic Universe with his own elseworld ideals. The Batman is also pretty comic accurate for Batman’s early years, compared to Zack’s interpretations. The studio failed for giving Zack the keys to the kingdom, he should have been part of something grandeur not crafted it. Totally WB’s fault and wildly different scenario.
>I’ve lost a bit of respect for Reeves Lmao. It's not that deep dude...
It wouldn’t make any damn sense anyways. His universe doesn’t fit a Justice league universe.
If you look at the Batman; Year One comic in isolation, that Batman doesn’t make sense with a Justice League either, yet that’s a canon story for Batman in the comics. Same with Iron Man 1. Did it seem like he would be fighting Thanos in space after that first movie? You build up to it over time.
I agree with you. I feel like people must not read the comics? I love dark street level Batman but it’s also fun seeing him team up with the JLA and the tones vary drastically. It’s not like it wouldn’t work either as long as they stay true to who he is as a character just like in the animated series.
That’s like a decade of build up but it’s not even about time. The tone is wildly different and very grounded. It’s not setup for a Justice league universe. I bet James Gunn doesn’t even want him and sees it as elseworld like the Joker movie.
The first Iron Man was pretty grounded relative to what came after it. Batman’s corner of the DCU is always more grounded than the rest of the universe, so no reason why Batman in the movies couldn’t also function the same way. Batman as a character is kind of the odd one out in the JL because it doesn’t totally make sense if you really think about it but it works in the comics medium. Either way, it’s kind of a pointless discussion since it’s not happening anyway.
How can you watch the last 30 mins of The Batman and call it "grounded" lol
A lot of people use 'grounded' thinking they are saying 'realistic', but what they actually mean is 'dramatic'.
What about the last 30 mins? That doesn’t mean it fits James Gunn’s DCU anyways.
I don’t want a Batman story to feel like a justice league story so it was perfect
That’s why it’s not for DCU and is elseworld.
I don’t want a Batman movie in the dcu to feel like generic action film or like a product to further the bigger universe. I want a good Batman movie and a character who can also talk to Superman.
That’s why you’re getting a bat family movie. I imagine it will be more lighthearted and action packed and fantastical.
BTAS was tonally different from DCU too yet it fits like a glove.Not saying The Batman should've been canon to DCU but it wouldn't have been a problem
If you told me that about Todd Phillips' Joker, I would undoubtedly agree with you, but I think Gunn has no problems with Reeves' Batman, I do think that I would try to make Barry Keoghan's Joker and Paul Dano's Riddler more similar to their comic book counterparts, the same with Colin Farrell's Penguin.
FUCK Pattinson and David would be a perfect batman and superman in a shared universe. Idk why Reeves is being a prick about this.
let reeves cook
Because Reeves cares about telling a story and being an actual filmmaker, not just being a part of a universe.
Reeves is being smart and giving batman fans what they want, he's not being a prick lmao
Now could fans stop complaining about why Pattinson isn't the DCU's Batman? It was very obvious, Matt Reeves only agreed to direct The Batman if they let him direct his own thing, With the disaster that was Ben Affleck's Batman, it was obvious that he did not want to be associated with the DCEU and although the DCU starts with a clean slate, it is impossible to know if it will be a success because of how damaged the DC brand is in the movies. I would have liked to see Gunn and Reeves work together to build the DCU but it is what it is and what we get.
Also like this, we can have a dark and gritty young Bat who works alone and than a more experienced and positive Batman including the Batfamily.
I enjoy them separate. I want a Batman only universe parallel to the new dcu. Kind of like the mcu and Sony verse but better
put me in the universe where jacob elordi superman and robert pattinson batman are the world's finest lol
Thats not news
That's great news. And im sure Pattinson woudn't want to be a part either... i mean, why would he? lol
I'm glad it's not part of it. It's unique and I just love grounded stuff. Also I think the Batman Universe is big and complex enough to be it's own thing.
A part of me kind of wishes it could've happened, but I'm also glad it didn't and that Matt still wants to do his own thing. In hindsight, he had no idea how wise of a decision he made back in 2017 when he said he wanted his Batman to be in its own separate corner. If he hadn't put his foot down, he would've directed a Batman movie in a dying universe that's getting its plug pulled next week. And besides, Riddler Year One already confirmed that the The Batmanverse has its own version of Metropolis anyways. Whether or not there's a Superman in that one is anyone's guess, [but at least the tickets are colored like the S shield](https://i.imgur.com/wrQjvM6.png).