I'm Reading Your Stuff: General News and Discussion Thread

[Boom]

IMO, this whole situation has entered into "worst case scenario" territory in terms of having two concurrent Batman franchises. It'd be one thing if The Batman II was coming out later this year, and then maybe Reeves could wrap up a trilogy with a "Part III" coming out in 2027 or 2028 just as the DCU was gearing up to introduce their own version of Batman...but unfortunately, for whatever reason, things did not work out that way.

Instead, The Batman II is supposedly coming out in 2027 -- 5 years after the original (which already sucks) -- and we're almost certainly going to have the DCU Batman coming into the fold somewhere soon whether it be in his own movie or a Worlds Finest or a Superman sequel or whatever...smack dab in the middle of the Reeves Batman trilogy. There's just no way to time this well or stagger this in a way that makes sense to me any more, outside of fully waiting for the Reeves-verse to conclude before introducing a DCU Batman. As a diehard fan, I'm always down for more Batman and will see everything, but for the general public? I could be wrong but it seems confusing and I have to imagine one of these Batman versions - or even both - will be hurt by this in some way over time. It's not really fair for the DCU Batman to be getting introduced amongst this. That version deserves it's own hype, fanfare, buildup, etc and the ability to stand on its own....but alternatively, this will also take some buzz away from Reeves' Batman

There's not even a sound comparison for anything like this happening before to this extent, is there? Imagine a separate James Bond series debuting or running concurrently to the Daniel Craig Bond films, or a live action Batman film with a different actor releasing nearly simultaneously to the Nolan Batman movies/appearances or during that trilogy's release schedule. Would that be fair to Nolan's Batman? Or vice versa?

My biggest questions are:

1) Will the DCU Batman beat The Batman Part II to theaters?
2) Will Part II's reception (critically and/or financially) be negatively impacted by subsequent brand confusion?

If Part II can beat DCU's Batman to the punch, then we really just need to hope that Reeves delivers another home run. WBD will then presumably green-light Part III, at which point it's pretty inconsequential how the DCU Batman is received and what brand confusion is caused after-the-fact. Part III will do whatever it does critically and financially, but by that point Reeves is all wrapped up.

 

[solidsnake86]

Gunn making a world's finest movie for Batman's introduction to the DCU, while also having a separate batman series going on, is a sure way to get himself removed from the co-ceo position.

Only comic book movie fans think it's a good idea to have two separate batman takes on film at the same time. The general audience will not go for it.

The superhero movie genre is in decline because audiences actually want good movies once again.

I see them either ending Reeves Batman early or merging the two, I really don't see them running concurrently.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The general audience doesn't pay attention to the details of this ****. If they see a cool trailer for a Batman movie, or a movie with Batman in it, that captures their interest, they will go see it. Period.

 

[Boom]

We really don't know what the impact of having two concurrent Batman franchises would be, and we're simply not going to know until they actually do it. The problem is, if it does end up being the worst case scenario and people don't go for it, then Reeves' franchise suffers for it. Just seems like a high risk, low reward situation here.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

It feels like the ultimate in franchise building banality to me. There’s already a relatively new, vibrant, successful Batman series but it’s insufficient because he can’t show up in post credit scenes of other movies. Because nothing will ever really matter in this franchise other than a desperate lust to finally be the MCU.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

DC Comics has been a shared universe for as long as its existed. Batman and Superman have crossed over in just about every medium they have appeared in (hell, the actor for the Superman radio show took vacations and the producers literally brought Batman and Robin in as characters to sub for Superman).

I am getting a bit tired of this ThEy JuSt WaNt To Be ThE McU argument. Marvel Studios didn't invent the idea of a shared superhero universe. Kevin Feige merely took what both comic book companies have been doing for decades and applied it to the movies. DC did it in animation first with Bruce Timm building a universe through BTAS, STAS, Batman Beyond and then Justice League/Justice League Unlimited tied it all up in a neat bow. Its not a Marvel or Disney inclusive concept.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

DC Comics has been a shared universe for as long as its existed. Batman and Superman have crossed over in just about every medium they have appeared in (hell, the actor for the Superman radio show took vacations and the producers literally brought Batman and Robin in as characters to sub for Superman).

I am getting a bit tired of this ThEy JuSt WaNt To Be ThE McU argument. Marvel Studios didn't invent the idea of a shared superhero universe. Kevin Feige merely took what both comic book companies have been doing for decades and applied it to the movies. DC did it in animation first with Bruce Timm building a universe through BTAS, STAS, Batman Beyond and then Justice League/Justice League Unlimited tied it all up in a neat bow. Its not a Marvel or Disney inclusive concept.

I have no creative issue, inherently, with a shared universe. Even in stuff like The Batman I just default headcanon that a Superman exists somewhere. But, on film, the primary example and model is Marvel. Of course they want to be the MCU and that's the reason they want a shared universe on film, even though what's always worked for DC on film is something entirely different.

 

[TheGDBatman]

DC Comics has been a shared universe for as long as its existed. Batman and Superman have crossed over in just about every medium they have appeared in (hell, the actor for the Superman radio show took vacations and the producers literally brought Batman and Robin in as characters to sub for Superman).

I am getting a bit tired of this ThEy JuSt WaNt To Be ThE McU argument. Marvel Studios didn't invent the idea of a shared superhero universe. Kevin Feige merely took what both comic book companies have been doing for decades and applied it to the movies. DC did it in animation first with Bruce Timm building a universe through BTAS, STAS, Batman Beyond and then Justice League/Justice League Unlimited tied it all up in a neat bow. Its not a Marvel or Disney inclusive concept.

I also just don’t understand the issue with it on a fundamental level. Do I want all my favourite characters interacting on screen together? Uh, yes, yes I do. Just because it’s part of a shared universe doesn’t mean it’s going to be a bland/sanitized version of the comics.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I simply think there are a number of historic issues with running shared universes on film that I have very little faith they're going to avoid this time. If they actually did fully commit to just doing pure standalone movies with zero house style, limited creative oversight and then just saved all that stuff for crossover specific movies where that might actually be exciting - then sure! That would be fun!

I'm well aware superhero stories are classically Settings filled with other heroes. I get that. It's why I think a lot of the backlash to the supporting cast of Superman is really dumb.

 

[ENCK]

I don't think the general public is that stupid to not understand a REEVES Batman film being down to Earth realistic take without the fantasy elements or villainy being confused with the DCU Brave and the Bold movie. We have had lots of Batmen, and if Nolan's Bat films would have debuted at the same time as Snyder's BVS or Justice League I think most people would understand two directors, two separate story lines, two separate universes etc... It's not that hard to ascertain.

 

[BobJM]

Didn’t both Nolan and Bale specifically speak out against George Miller’s Justice League because they wanted WB to wait to introduce another version of Batman so it didn’t compete with theirs?

It’s not about the public being “stupid.” It’s about them caring enough to pay for another almost-$20 ticket when they’re already being told by DC/WB to care about a different version.

 

[BatsAndNights]

Catching Up with James Gunn and Peter Safran of DC Studios, Part II

"Safran continued. “His crime saga that he’s telling. The Batman trilogy,""

Not quite the horse's mouth, but from somebody who's probably seen into it or at the very least is in close contact with somebody else who's stared directly into it

 

[Luke995]

My two cents on the long writing and the future of Reevesverse.

- Matt is writing the sequel as self-contained, just like The Batman was. If you think about TDK, it could have been the end of Nolan's Batman. Of course TDKR was a proper ending of the trilogy, but the ending of TDK makes sense. I mean, Batman: Returns' ending is maybe more open to a sequel. But it's been ok anyway.

- Meanwhile, another spin-off series + Penguin Season 2 is on the table. So Matt is writing the sequel as self-contained but he has the chance to transfer some wordbuilding-plot point of the story he has in mind inside them. That's why it's taking longer.

- Penguin has been an huge hit, considering all the awards too. So I think Matt is seriously thinking to continue the story of Bruce in a series instead of a third movie (that's why it's not Part II anymore).
So, if the sequel will be a hit, he'll make a Part III (if the DCU is a smaller hit, Gunn will wait).
If it's not (or if the DCU is a far bigger hit, or who knows what else), he'll make a limited series in a few years.
On TV shows, the laws of distribution and "box office" are far more soft than in the cinema.

Plus, Matt initially pitched The Batmas as a series. On TV he would have more artistic and rating freedom, and he won't be a competitor of the DCU Batman (that would become "the movie-Batman").

Anyway, we're taking too much for granted that DCU or even Superman will go great. I wouldn't be so sure, frankly.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

They aren't going to do Batman on a TV show unless its an animated show.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

The status of Batman on live action TV in terms of rights is a bit of a mystery on top of other issues.

 

[ENCK]

The status of Batman on live action TV in terms of rights is a bit of a mystery on top of other issues.

well said. I always wondered why they never made a true to form Batman show. 10 seasons of it on MAX or NET/FLIX

 

[donuts]

Let's keep Batman as movie royalty.

 

[emc5466]

Jeff Sneider says Matt Reeves and James Gunn are engaged in a power struggle. Sneider believes Gunn will use the flopping of Mickey 17 as leverage against Reeves so that he can cast his own Batman.

 

[Venom 1988]

Jeff Sneider says Matt Reeves and James Gunn are engaged in a power struggle. Sneider believes Gunn will use the flopping of Mickey 17 as leverage against Reeves so that he can cast his own Batman.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Why would he need to use anything as leverage to cast his own Batman when he is the guy running DC Studios and can do that if he wants anyway?

 

[emc5466]

Why would he need to use anything as leverage to cast his own Batman when he is the guy running DC Studios and can do that if he wants anyway?

The CEO of the parent company is the one who makes the final decisions on the corporation’s most important asset.

 

[donuts]

Jeff Sneider says Matt Reeves and James Gunn are engaged in a power struggle. Sneider believes Gunn will use the flopping of Mickey 17 as leverage against Reeves so that he can cast his own Batman.

That's not quite what he said.

Maybe it's time for you to stop "reporting" stuff.

You seem to constantly interpret things ass backwards.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Anyone know what Sneider said more precisely?

 

[Black Narcissus]

Why would he need to use anything as leverage to cast his own Batman when he is the guy running DC Studios and can do that if he wants anyway?

Eh, Todd Phillips pretty much ignored Gunn and co. That being a good or bad thing remains unclear, that film was going be made regardless. Reeves feels like he has the same cache within the studio so far, I’m sure he is game to share notes/ scripts and story points so as both film universe don’t do the same thing and whatnot, but I don’t believe Gunn has that kind of power to override Batman 2 and make any real changes to it. Just my take.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Sneider, while legit, is also a nasty petty little man. He’s got obvious giant biases.