Matt Reeves To Direct The Upcoming Batman Solo - Part 2

[Invader Joker]

Also, an interesting tidbit, here's something Batman-Related that the key illustrator for The Batman did:

Dunno if it's for this movie or not.

 

[Nemeres]

Even if it's not for The Batman, I'd like a similar palette.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Where are you all getting that this is going to be a trilogy? You talk about it as if it's a sure thing.

 

[Invader Joker]

Where are you all getting that this is going to be a trilogy? You talk about it as if it's a sure thing.

Because the trades have confirmed it.

 

[C Prometheus]

Where are you all getting that this is going to be a trilogy? You talk about it as if it's a sure thing.

Matt Reeves has literally been talking about his Batman films as a trilogy since 2017, Robert Pattinson was reported to have signed a three movie contract for Batman.

Sure, it's not a given that all three films will get made, but currently there's far more reason to think it will happen than not. Much like how we wake up every morning and assume that we'll be around for dinner that evening. Theoretically speaking, anything could happen between that morning and the evening that prevents you from having dinner... but chances are you're typically going to assume you'll have dinner that night.

 

[TheGuy]

My wish is 4 Batman films from Reeves, though we are most likely getting a trilogy only.

 

[Travesty]

Well, we have to figure out if the first one from Reeves is good enough for a sequel.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Also, an interesting tidbit, here's something Batman-Related that the key illustrator for The Batman did:

Dunno if it's for this movie or not.

Thats gorgeous

 

[Invader Joker]

War for the Planet of the Apes — James Chinlund : Production Design

If you wanna take a look at the work Chinlund did with Matt Reeves.

 

[Iceman]

Matt Reeves has literally been talking about his Batman films as a trilogy since 2017, Robert Pattinson was reported to have signed a three movie contract for Batman.

Sure, it's not a given that all three films will get made, but currently there's far more reason to think it will happen than not. Much like how we wake up every morning and assume that we'll be around for dinner that evening. Theoretically speaking, anything could happen between that morning and the evening that prevents you from having dinner... but chances are you're typically going to assume you'll have dinner that night.

Good signs yeah.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I hate the mindset that everything needs to be a ****ing trilogy. Just make one good movie. Then go from there.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, it being a trilogy is probably a good way to get an actor like Pattinson on board. Much better chance he'll sign on for a 3 movie deal, than sign on for 8 without a clue of what the creative direction would be that far down the road. Realistically you don't go into a project like this expecting it to be a one-off either, so there has to be some consideration for what the overall commitment is from a business standpoint. If the movie turns out to not be successful, then you reevaluate.

I like trilogies personally. When they're done well, it's one of the most satisfying forms of cinematic storytelling. Maybe I'm just old fashioned that way, but give me a great trilogy over an elaborate interconnected universe any day of the week. Mind you, that's also not to say that Reeves couldn't potentially do something like with his Apes trilogy where he concludes a 3 story arc, but the door is left open for more.

I do agree that we're getting ahead of ourselves though and we first need to see what this movie even is before worrying about parts 2 and 3. Cart before the horse and all that.

 

[FunkMiller]

Honestly, it being a trilogy is probably a good way to get an actor like Pattinson on board. Much better chance he'll sign on for a 3 movie deal, than sign on for 8 without a clue of what the creative direction would be that far down the road. Realistically you don't go into a project like this expecting it to be a one-off either, so there has to be some consideration for what the overall commitment is from a business standpoint. If the movie turns out to not be successful, then you reevaluate.

I like trilogies personally. When they're done well, it's one of the most satisfying forms of cinematic storytelling. Maybe I'm just old fashioned that way, but give me a great trilogy over an elaborate interconnected universe any day of the week. Mind you, that's also not to say that Reeves couldn't potentially do something like with his Apes trilogy where he concludes a 3 story arc, but the door is left open for more.

I do agree that we're getting ahead of ourselves though and we first need to see what this movie even is before worrying about parts 2 and 3. Cart before the horse and all that.

Three act structures within a three act structure is a thing of beauty.

But it’s rarely ever done well, because it’s rare for a writer to compose the entire trilogy at once. Hence why third parts of the trilogy tend to be of lesser quality.

The only timed when trilogies really excel across every part is when the story is written as such right from the get go. Lord Of The Rings being the prime example - and probably one of the only ones.

I’m fascinated to see if Reeves can pull off a cohesive trilogy, that maintains the quality throughout. It will be a first for the comic book movie genre.

 

[BatLobster]

Three act structures within a three act structure is a thing of beauty.

But it’s rarely ever done well, because it’s rare for a writer to compose the entire trilogy at once. Hence why third parts of the trilogy tend to be of lesser quality.

The only timed when trilogies really excel across every part is when the story is written as such right from the get go. Lord Of The Rings being the prime example - and probably one of the only ones.

I’m fascinated to see if Reeves can pull off a cohesive trilogy, that maintains the quality throughout. It will be a first for the comic book movie genre.

I don't necessarily agree, personally. I think there is something to be said for an artist living and growing with the story they're telling vs. putting themselves in a box early on. I think as long as you have a broad idea of where you're going, it can work. I don't think one approach is inherently better than the other from a creative standpoint. I know Toy Story isn't a trilogy anymore but, those first three films were all one-offs with some ongoing themes, and they ended up pulling them together beautifully.

And there have definitely been examples of TV shows that stumbled in their endings despite having longstanding plans about where things were going, because they didn't account for the story outgrowing their original ideas (How I Met Your Mother comes to mind). So I actually really hope Reeves wouldn't attempt to write the whole thing in advance and would allow room for the story to evolve naturally over time. Doesn't mean he can't have broad ideas, but I'm a fan of the one story at a time approach.

 

[Greenlite]

We should have a trilogy where the 3rd film is split into part 1 and 2 =P

But seriously the Ape/Caesar trilogy was great, and Matt elevated and finished off the story beautifully for the 2nd and 3rd movies that he directed.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Matt Reeves has literally been talking about his Batman films as a trilogy since 2017, Robert Pattinson was reported to have signed a three movie contract for Batman.

Sure, it's not a given that all three films will get made, but currently there's far more reason to think it will happen than not. Much like how we wake up every morning and assume that we'll be around for dinner that evening. Theoretically speaking, anything could happen between that morning and the evening that prevents you from having dinner... but chances are you're typically going to assume you'll have dinner that night.

Can you point me to the times he's been talking about it please?

Trilogy means three, so three Batman films is fine. But I think people conflate trilogy with each movie being like a SW three act structure type of thing. As one whole story. And I don't think we should assume that or necessarily desire for that. I think you can make just three standalone films.

But why is it always three movies? I think it has more to do with the three act structure of a whole story than just making up to three standalone films. Other than that what significance is there to the number? It's an odd number anyway.

My point is we shouldn't be so narrow when it comes to these things. I guess we'll have to see what he means.

 

[Boom]

Can you point me to the times he's been talking about it please?

Trilogy means three, so three Batman films is fine. But I think people conflate trilogy with each movie being like a SW three act structure type of thing. As one whole story. And I don't think we should assume that or necessarily desire for that. I think you can make just three standalone films.

But why is it always three movies? I think it has more to do with the three act structure of a whole story than just making up to three standalone films. Other than that what significance is there to the number? It's an odd number anyway.

My point is we shouldn't be so narrow when it comes to these things.

I think it's more to do with fans training themselves to have that mentality.

You want more than two films, but you don't expect the director to stick around for four. Three's the happy compromise.

 

[TheGuy]

Trilogies are significant and standard practice because they are logically sensible.

1st - Beginning
2nd - Middle (Ties the beginning and end)
3rd - End

As I've mentioned before in this thread, I prefer 4 films simply because there are many more Batman stories yet to be adapted on film. It also allows for more character development. The Burton/Schumacher films are actually great studies of Batman's evolution from being an obsessed vigilante who seeks vengeance in B89, to a directionless killer whose persona is wholly consumed in Batman, to the duality conflict of Bruce and Batman in BF and finally, the resolution of the duality conflict in B&R. Going back to trilogies, it might also be due to simplicity and allows for easier plotting of general ideas over 3 films than more.

 

[Nemeres]

There's elegance in doing a two-parter too. A main villain(s) for each film and an overarching one across both. The Kill Bill route. :P

 

[I Am The Knight]

Also, an interesting tidbit, here's something Batman-Related that the key illustrator for The Batman did:

Dunno if it's for this movie or not.

B89 inspired? Reminds of the first shot of Batman in that movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

There's elegance in doing a two-parter too. A main villain(s) for each film and an overarching one across both. The Kill Bill route.

The point is there really isn't a formula here. You can apply that same thinking to four or five movies. The point is the certain structure of it all is necessitated by how the story is told. And the thing is you don't always have to adhere to that certain structure. It's nebulous.

I think SW popularized this idea and ever since it's become an assumed thing. To the point we've become beholden to it.

You look at the Cap movies or Avengers movies. They don't adhere to a traditional trilogy structure. They're just movies that are made by how their stories are told.

 

[Pennywise]

We Got This Covered is saying Stanley Tucci is on WB’s wish list for Riddler.

Not sure if I buy it as Geeks Worldwide said they were looking for any actor between 30-40 years old.

MCU Actor Being Eyed To Play The Riddler In The Batman

They also report that Toby Kebbell is on the wish list for Penguin and Crane isn’t in the film.

Fantastic Four Star Being Eyed To Play Penguin In The Batman

As always, take what the website says with a big grain of salt.

 

[antsman41]

Cast folks who haven’t been in comic films already, please and thanks.

Yeah... we got lucky with Reynolds and Evans. But, please... there’s a bigger pool of actors out there.

 

[TMP98]

WGTC is the least reliable source ever.
Hoping for Hoult Riddler.

 

[Boom]

WGTC is going nuts with the made-up rumors lately.