The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Lautox]

Seriously doubt it comes out later than fall 2025. I’m betting for that summer.

Let the negative nancies who know nothing about the basics of screenwriting and studio greenlighting waste their breath on this. They’ll be typing away for the next year about how the Reeves-verse might be canceled. Meanwhile we know that nothing is actually greenlit until a script is read and there’s a solid idea of what the budget is going to be.

I even saw an artist I follow on IG say something today like “in what world is Joker 2 greenlit and not The Batman 2!! WHAT is going on!?” it’s like buddy...calm down. Joker 2 has a finished script.

Just imagine The Batman sequel set on christmas with a christmas release on 2025...Plus it looks like Reeves is right now on early stages of the script, propably just planning ideas. He obvioulsy knows already where to take the story and the characters.

 

[shauner111]

He doesn’t really write that way though. He spends months on the first act before he even thinks of the second act or third. It’s basically the Tarantino and Gilligan approach to writing where you write yourselves into a corner and let the characters dig themselves out. Even when it’s a plot driven movie.

So I’d say Matt will probably move on to the second act sometime this fall. Maybe by Halloween or earlier depending on when he begun the process. And he won’t be working with Craig anymore. I’m sure he’s been working with Tomlin already. So by next spring or summer (summer to be safe) the script should be complete.

A late 2023 start date sounds reasonable. Probably wrap in the summer of 24’. If there’s no delays, we should be looking at a spring or summer 2025 release date.

I do hope it’s a winter setting, taking place approximately 13 months after the events of The Batman. Skipping one winter (maybe the Penguin series starts off there) and then kicking the sequel off during the following winter. But maybe Reeves will end his trilogy with a Christmas movie instead. But damnit I do pray that it’s coming next. They can film some stuff during the winter of 23’/24’ and use artificial snow/ice when needed on the UK indoor sets. There’s also that crazy tech they’ll be using again which would show a snowy Gotham projected on set for the actors. It all sounds like magic to me.

And no you don’t need to save the winter vibes for a Mr Freeze story. I’d like to see a bigger rogues gallery in that climate trying to fight Penguin (and maybe Black Mask) for his spot. Horrible conditions with Bruce Wayne trying his best to make life easier for Gotham with Christmas around the corner. Gangsters and freaks in winter coats doing deals out in the freezing cold. Batman coming up with new tech to travel on icy roads and slush.

We need another movie like Batman Returns to watch during Christmas time. Just like The Batman is going to be amazing every Halloween season.

 

[J.Drangal]

I was a bit hesitant to post this, as it will probably be a bit unpopular, but keep in mind that it's just my opinion and I'm not trying to start a debate...
Despite my immense love for the atmosphere, the visuals, the overall direction and pretty much everything about The Batman (I've seen it 4 times in theaters and been singing its praises here for months...), I hope Reeves finds a new partner to write the sequel.

While I really like all the story ideas of that first film, in details, I still have some reservations about the way everything was put together. Mostly the end of act 2, the "Wayne subplot".
That part always seemed a bit static to me. I'm not talking about a lack of action, I can watch Batman looking for evidence with a flashlight for two hours, no problem . But that succession of scenes, back to back, even though excellent in themselves thanks to Turturro and Serkis' acting, were still showing our main character getting some pretty heavy expositions through monologues. And to me, that makes the film lose some of its momentum. The fact that, right after, the big mystery is revealed, once again, through a monologue from Kenzie, a very secondary character, also felt a bit anticlimatic. As if the film suddenly needed to move forward without the intervention of its main protagonists.

When I later saw several interviews where Reeves was hinting about trouble with the script, it kind of confirmed that feeling I had when watching some part of the film. Like if I could taste the blood, sweat and tears of the writing... It certainly wasn't enough for me to dislike the movie (obviously), but if there's one thing I want to see improved in the next one, it's this. I think it would be better for Reeves to find someone with a fresh perspective to spot this kind of thing and help him offer us his vision in its best form.

In any case, a decade after Nolan's trilogy, I'm still over the moon to know my favortite character is in the hand of people with a solid ambition for him, and I'm damn looking forward to what's next !

 

[DeadlyWest]

I was a bit hesitant to post what I'm about to say, as it will probably be a bit unpopular, but keep in mind that it's just my opinion and I'm not trying to start a debate...
Despite my immense love for the atmosphere, the visuals, the overall direction and pretty much everything about The Batman (I've seen it 4 times in theaters and been singing its praises here for months...), I hope Reeves finds a new partner to write the sequel.

While I really like all the story ideas of the first film, in details, I still have some reservations about the way everything was put together. Mostly the end of act 2, the "Wayne subplot".
That part always seemed a bit static to me. I'm not talking about a lack of action, I can watch Batman looking for evidence with a flashlight for two hours . But this succession of scenes, back to back, even though excellent in themselves thanks to Turturro and Serkis' acting, were still our main character getting some pretty heavy expositions through monologues. And to me, that makes the film lose some of its momentum. Also, the fact that, right after, the big mystery was revealed, once again, through a monologue from Kenzie, a very secondary character, also felt a bit anticlimatic. As if the film suddenly needed to move forward without the intervention of its main protagonists.

When I later saw several interviews where Reeves was hinting about trouble with the script, it kind of confirmed that feeling I had when watching that part of the film, where I felt like I could taste the blood, sweat and tears of the writing... It certainly wasn't enough for me to dislike the movie (obviously), and there are always things to nitpick about in every movie (or almost), but if there's one thing I want to see improved in the next one, it's this. I think it would be better for Reeves to find someone with a fresh perspective to spot this kind of thing and and help him offer us his vision in its best form.

In any case, a decade after Nolan's trilogy, I'm still over the moon to know my favortite character is in the hand of people with a solid ambition for him, and I'm damn looking forward to what's next !

You're probably in luck, seeing as I'm pretty sure it's an open secret that Reeves won't be working with Peter Craig on Batman 2. Instead, he might just be working with Mattson Tomlin, who helped him with act 3.

 

[Iceman]

I was a bit hesitant to post this, as it will probably be a bit unpopular, but keep in mind that it's just my opinion and I'm not trying to start a debate...
Despite my immense love for the atmosphere, the visuals, the overall direction and pretty much everything about The Batman (I've seen it 4 times in theaters and been singing its praises here for months...), I hope Reeves finds a new partner to write the sequel.

While I really like all the story ideas of the first film, in details, I still have some reservations about the way everything was put together. Mostly the end of act 2, the "Wayne subplot".
That part always seemed a bit static to me. I'm not talking about a lack of action, I can watch Batman looking for evidence with a flashlight for two hours . But this succession of scenes, back to back, even though excellent in themselves thanks to Turturro and Serkis' acting, were still our main character getting some pretty heavy expositions through monologues. And to me, that makes the film lose some of its momentum. The fact that, right after, the big mystery is revealed, once again, through a monologue from Kenzie, a very secondary character, also felt a bit anticlimatic. As if the film suddenly needed to move forward without the intervention of its main protagonists.

When I later saw several interviews where Reeves was hinting about trouble with the script, it kind of confirmed that feeling I had when watching that part of the film. Like if I could taste the blood, sweat and tears of the writing... It certainly wasn't enough for me to dislike the movie (obviously), and there are always things to nitpick about in every movie (or almost). But if there's one thing I want to see improved in the next one, it's this. I think it would be better for Reeves to find someone with a fresh perspective to spot this kind of thing and help him offer us his vision in its best form.

In any case, a decade after Nolan's trilogy, I'm still over the moon to know my favortite character is in the hand of people with a solid ambition for him, and I'm damn looking forward to what's next !

The Wayne subplot and the final Riddler reveal and subsequent related scenes didn't quite work for me (not that they were entirely bad or anything) but otherwise I love the whole film and it gives me many things a Batman film didn't give me before. I'm really excited for the future of the Reeves-verse, assuming the suits can let him achieve everything he wants without too many restrictions.

I actually have the most nitpicks with my favourite films like LotR - I wouldn't bother nitpicking bad films - they're just bad lol. Nitpicking is something I do when I otherwise like something.

 

[Rick190293]

The Waynes subplot was easily the worst thing about the story for me. It came late at the plot and got solved too quickly with just a single conversation (great scene btw).

 

[Gothamsknight]

The Waynes subplot was easily the worst thing about the story for me. It came late at the plot and got solved too quickly with just a single conversation (great scene btw).

It slowed the movie to a crawl for me. I found it pointless, and it just dragged the running time out more. Everything else about the story was really good though.

I really hope Reeves doesn't go for 3 hours for the next film, and I honestly don't think he will. I also want it to be set during the winter so badly.

 

[BatLobster]

I was falling down a 90s music video rabbit hole the other night, and I have to say...

I think Black Hole Sun would really fit the vibe of a Reeves-verse Batman movie. Thematically you've got darkness and light right there in the title. Lyrically it's vague enough to apply in a variety of ways. "Wash away the rain". The song is epic and one of the very best grunge-era songs, and could easily be made cinematic in the marketing. Sadly, given Chris Cornell's fate you can continue the troubled rock star vibe without strictly making this the Kurt Cobain trilogy.

Right now I think that's got my vote if they're going to continue in this grunge direction. Maybe a bit obvious, but I think there's potential there. And if the sequel is going to aim to be a bigger event, going with an even more iconic song would make sense. Just putting it out there.

I loved the use of Something in the Way in the marketing and movie for TB, but I hope the next movie differentiates itself from that a bit to keep it fresh.

 

[Rick190293]

It slowed the movie to a crawl for me. I found it pointless, and it just dragged the running time out more. Everything else about the story was really good though.

I really hope Reeves doesn't go for 3 hours for the next film, and I honestly don't think he will. I also want it to be set during the winter so badly.

I don't know, usually the second movie is where the directors got more and more freedom... but with the first one already being 3h-long, and given the fact this is one of the movie's main criticism, maybe WB interferes this time. And I hope so.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I definitely don't want WB to compromise Reeves vision though. I just want Reeves to know when there's fat that needs to be trimmed.

 

[shauner111]

I love all the Falcone/Wayne stuff. I still wouldn’t change a thing about this movie. With that said, Craig helped Reeves with the second act and Matt said they won’t be working together anymore.

I also don’t think it was resolved. People seem to think that Alfred tells Bruce that his dad was still an angel and then Bruce accepts it and moves on. That’s not at all how i read the scene. He didn’t look like he suddenly accepted any of it. He just knows now that his father wasn’t an angel, nor was he a evil mob boss. It’s more complicated. And he takes that with him into the final scene of the movie where he can now look at himself in a way that isn’t black or white (like he was before). He can now see his own faults and failures and strives to do better. It’s all connected to his parents and the new information that was given to him by Alfred. It’s just not spelt out with a monologue that includes “my father did this...and now I can..” there’s no need for it.

 

[C Prometheus]

You're probably in luck, seeing as I'm pretty sure it's an open secret that Reeves won't be working with Peter Craig on Batman 2. Instead, he might just be working with Mattson Tomlin, who helped him with act 3.

Considering he's the main writer for Batman: Caped Crusader, I'd love if Reeves were to tap Ed Brubaker to help co-write for The Batman 2.

I definitely don't want WB to compromise Reeves vision though. I just want Reeves to know when there's fat that needs to be trimmed.

The thing is though that I can't really think of any particularly sizable chunks in the final cut of The Batman that could be seen as "fat that needed to be trimmed." Sure, you could maybe get rid of the Joker cameo at the end, but that's a measly two minutes.

And I'm personally of the opinion that the film would have been better off making a few key adjustments to the earlier Deleted Arkham scene and keeping that in the film too, to better justify Joker's presence at the end. And contrary to what some folks seem to think, the film's last act is absolutely pivotal to bringing Bruce's character arc full circle.

As for the pacing and runtime of the next film, I wouldn't be surprised if Reeves continues to stay in that "Over 2.5 Hours/Almost 3 Hours" runtime zone for the next film. Maybe the next film will be shorter, but I'd wager that the deliberate pacing is something that's here to stay with Reeves.

I love all the Falcone/Wayne stuff. I still wouldn’t change a thing about this movie. With that said, Craig helped Reeves with the second act and Matt said they won’t be working together anymore.

I also don’t think it was resolved. People seem to think that Alfred tells Bruce that his dad was still an angel and then Bruce accepts it and moves on. That’s not at all how i read the scene. He didn’t look like he suddenly accepted any of it. He just knows now that his father wasn’t an angel, nor was he a evil mob boss. It’s more complicated. And he takes that with him into the final scene of the movie where he can now look at himself in a way that isn’t black or white (like he was before). He can now see his own faults and failures and strives to do better. It’s all connected to his parents and the new information that was given to him by Alfred. It’s just not spelt out with a monologue that includes “my father did this...and now I can..” there’s no need for it.

Yeah, while I was initially bummed out that Reeves didn't fully commit to Thomas Wayne being corrupt, I've really come around on the idea that Thomas' complete naivety towards the depths of Falcone's evil and his desire to bypass corrupt institutions to better the city wound up being both his and Gotham's undoing.

 

[antsman41]

That... Falcone perpetuated that Thomas was "bad" in the sense to also pass the blame onto Maroni. Riddler painted Thomas being full-on bad.

And, Alfred was merely honest. Thomas wasn't bad or evil. He was a good guy who made one bad decision, to ask for help from Falcone // which lead to their deaths.

Thomas was flawed, as are most people and Bruce understood that. I think that notion helped him see that making Batman's view being so black & white doesn't work Which in turn helped him see he can be more than a fist to the underbelly of Gotham. He needs to be a beacon for those affected by Gotham's crime and faults.

 

[dhandler01]

I love all the Falcone/Wayne stuff. I still wouldn’t change a thing about this movie. With that said, Craig helped Reeves with the second act and Matt said they won’t be working together anymore.

I also don’t think it was resolved. People seem to think that Alfred tells Bruce that his dad was still an angel and then Bruce accepts it and moves on. That’s not at all how i read the scene. He didn’t look like he suddenly accepted any of it. He just knows now that his father wasn’t an angel, nor was he a evil mob boss. It’s more complicated. And he takes that with him into the final scene of the movie where he can now look at himself in a way that isn’t black or white (like he was before). He can now see his own faults and failures and strives to do better. It’s all connected to his parents and the new information that was given to him by Alfred. It’s just not spelt out with a monologue that includes “my father did this...and now I can..” there’s no need for it.

That was how I read it too.

 

[BatLobster]

I mean, Alfred does pretty clearly say "Your father...was a good man." I don't notice anything in that scene communicating that Bruce doesn't take Alfred's word there. Seems pretty clear to me what the film is trying to say. His father made a really bad mistake and paid for his and Martha's life with it, along with the fate of his Renewal fund. Bruce can now try to help right that mistake with his mission. But can still go on believing that his father was "essentially" good and someone who genuinely wanted to help the city (and his wife), so his reason for being Batman in the first place isn't undermined. The movie seems to conclude that Thomas' sin wasn't some secret corruption, it was being naive about the threats that the city faced and how dangerous the mob actually was. As someone who actually gets down to the street level and gets his hands dirty and faces the most dangerous elements of the city head-on, Bruce/Batman definitely won't repeat that mistake.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Considering he's the main writer for Batman: Caped Crusader, I'd love if Reeves were to tap Ed Brubaker to help co-write for The Batman 2.

The idea of Matt Reeves and Ed Brubaker cowriting a ****ing Batman story is unironically arousing

 

[The Lazarus Pit]

If Zaslav axes The Batman sequels and spinoffs, we riot

 

[SwordOfMorning]

It's odd because the Falcone/Wayne Family stuff is both technically something of a flaw because it happens too quickly and feels too compressed but it's also the most interesting part of the movie and the glue that holds it together? I genuinely don't think any of the Riddler stuff (which I also love and could write endlessly about what a great, unsettling, topical villain he is) works without it.

 

[DeadlyWest]

It's odd because the Falcone/Wayne Family stuff is both technically something of a flaw because it happens too quickly and feels too compressed but it's also the most interesting part of the movie and the glue that holds it together? I genuinely don't think any of the Riddler stuff (which I also love and could write endlessly about what a great, unsettling, topical villain he is) works without it.

Yeah, in all honesty it should've been something that happened slowly over the course of the movie. Have something at the Mitchell crime scene which hints at the Wayne corruption that plants the seed of doubt for Bruce (but not enough for Bruce to know 100% for certain that's the case and worth investigating yet). Let him stew in it, maybe have that be the source of his animosity towards Alfred. Then hit him with the reveal when it happens. It would've made the situation a lot more effective.

 

[C Prometheus]

It's odd because the Falcone/Wayne Family stuff is both technically something of a flaw because it happens too quickly and feels too compressed but it's also the most interesting part of the movie and the glue that holds it together? I genuinely don't think any of the Riddler stuff (which I also love and could write endlessly about what a great, unsettling, topical villain he is) works without it.

Yeah, the answer itself and how it feeds into other elements of the film's overarching plot are fantastic. But the actual revelation and presentation needed more fine tuning in the script IMO.

I've had similar thoughts regarding Joker's role in the film, both in the deleted scene and the ending cameo- I wouldn't cut him out from the story, haters be damned. But both scenes should have been included in the film and the first needed some adjustments in the script to make it so that Joker's answers weren't so perfectly on the nose to the audience.

 

[Gothamsknight]

They should've cut the Joker/Riddler scene all together, and not have any in there. The deleted scene is so much better than the one in the movie, but even that wasn't really needed.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Yeah, the answer itself and how it feeds into other elements of the film's overarching plot are fantastic. But the actual revelation and presentation needed more fine tuning in the script IMO.

I've had similar thoughts regarding Joker's role in the film, both in the deleted scene and the ending cameo- I wouldn't cut him out from the story, haters be damned. But both scenes should have been included in the film and the first needed some adjustments in the script to make it so that Joker's answers weren't so perfectly on the nose to the audience.

The deleted scene really needed a rewrite if it were to be included in the film because it would massively undercut all the revelations about Riddler in the third act. The problem with that is you'd just be making it a completely different scene so... ultimately I feel like it works better as just an extra, canonical short film? Because how accurate Joker's assessment is while bad for the movie is great for fleshing out their version of Joker.

Final scene is far more important textually anyway. Sure, it's an obvious sequel hook and all but ultimately the scene is the culmination of Riddler's story first and foremost. Nashton implicitly transferring his lonely, parasocial obsessiveness to a new and more dangerous target is great.

 

[Gandhi]

An interesting point about the Falcone/Wayne subplot is the fact this was somewhat resolved from Bruce’s perspective but the public have no idea about what Alfred said. As far as they aware, they’ve only seen the video and think Thomas Wayne arranged for Falcone to kill the reporter. It’s something I hadn’t thought about until I heard it brought up on a podcast between Mario Robles and Jett from BOF weeks after the movie.

Do you think there will be anger towards Bruce for this and it’s something he’ll have to navigate in the sequel?

 

[C Prometheus]

The deleted scene really needed a rewrite if it were to be included in the film because it would massively undercut all the revelations about Riddler in the third act. The problem with that is you'd just be making it a completely different scene so... ultimately I feel like it works better as just an extra, canonical short film? Because how accurate Joker's assessment is while bad for the movie is great for fleshing out their version of Joker.

Final scene is far more important textually anyway. Sure, it's an obvious sequel hook and all but ultimately the scene is the culmination of Riddler's story first and foremost. Nashton implicitly transferring his lonely, parasocial obsessiveness to a new and more dangerous target is great.

See, the reason for what the final scene represents for Riddler is exactly why I think that first scene needed to be refined and included, because it firmly establishes that Edward has no idea that he's walking right into the spider's web. People can infer as much well enough in the cameo scene on its own, but the context of the deleted scene firmly reveals that Joker not only knew about Riddler ahead of time and had access to enough info on his crimes to put together how Edward thinks and feels and is clearly manipulating him for his own gain.

As for how much you would or wouldn't have to change the original scene in a rewrite, I actually think it wouldn't necessarily have to be as drastic a change as you're suggesting. Especially considering how much the deleted scene as is already owes a great deal to Hannibal Lector's scenes in Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter. It's not particularly difficult to adjust the dialogue to having Joker give Batman pieces of the puzzle, while making it clear that he's still holding back on other pieces for his own amusement.

EDIT: Actually, with the benefit of hindsight and all, I think one really strong idea that could potentially be made down the line in a future film is that for all of Edward's resentment and hatred towards Thomas Wayne and how his naive relationship with Falcone directly led to his horrific upbringing, he's making the exact same mistake by befriending and dealing in with the Joker. His own naivety and obsession for companionship could very well be something that leads to Joker firmly cementing his status as the Top Baddie in Gotham City.

 

[Gandhi]

They should've cut the Joker/Riddler scene all together, and not have any in there. The deleted scene is so much better than the one in the movie, but even that wasn't really needed.

I still like that scene. I feel you need one more Riddler scene after Batman saves the day to get his reaction. Plus it helps to further populate the world. Do you think you’d feel different about it if it was a villain other than Joker?