Is James Gunn Trying to Kill 'The Batman'?
There's a surprising lack of haste in following up on the 2022 film.
Many have tried to kill Batman, but the man who may succeed is the co-head of DC Studios, filmmaker James Gunn. Gunn and co-producer Peter Safran came on board in late 2022 to right a filmmaking lineup that never caught up with Marvel Studios and struggled with an erratic slate of superhero movies ranging from surprise hits like Aquaman to noisy flops like Black Adam. For Gunn, the solution seemed obvious: clear the deck of almost everything (his Max series, Peacemaker, a spinoff of his movie The Suicide Squad, would, of course, remain) and start over. When it came to sequels to hits too big to ignore—Joker and The Batman—Gunn declared that these would exist as “Elseworlds” stories. They would continue outside the continuity of the universe Gunn sought to build.
But only two movies existed in that Elseworlds lineup, and with the bombing of Joker: Folie à Deux, all that was left was The Batman. That story continued earlier this year with the HBO series The Penguin, a hit for the network. Considering that The Batman made $772 million worldwide and the spinoff series was a hit, one would assume that DC Studios would rush to get more Batman into theaters. Instead, we got the news that The Batman: Part II has been delayed a full year. The sequel was announced in April 2022, but now cameras won’t roll until the third quarter of 2025 for an October 2027 release. That means it will be over five years since Matt Reeves’ Batman graces screens.
This is if it sees theaters at all. The looming issue is that when Gunn took over DC Studios, he announced that part of his universe would be Batman: The Brave and the Bold, a story focusing on Batman and his biological son, Damian, who is also the fifth Robin. Gunn can say that it’s fine for two Batman movies to be in theaters, but he’s not dumb. He knows that we’re on the other side of the superhero boom, and there may not be enough room for two Batmen in theaters. If he can only pick one, why would he choose The Batman? He had nothing to do with its creation, and its creative vision stems from Reeves, who set a path for Batman that exists separate from the rest of the superhero movies Gunn wants to make. Both narratively and economically, The Batman could be seen as a thorn in Gunn’s side.
However, Gunn can’t come out and say he wants to move forward with only one Batman, and it’s going to be his. As a studio head, Gunn doesn’t want to burn a filmmaker, especially when Reeves has only delivered successes thus far with The Batman and The Penguin. To get rid of Reeves’ Batman, Gunn’s strategy appears to be cutting off the character’s oxygen. The longer the character is out of the public’s memory, the more time Gunn has to build interest in Batman: The Brave and the Bold (assuming he can get the script to a place he likes). In this way, DC Studios is still making a Batman movie; it will just be a Batman that aligns with Gunn’s vision for the character rather than Reeves’.
I fully admit that perhaps I’m being overly harsh on Gunn, and he’s not this Machiavellian about the whole thing. It could just be that it took Reeves some time to get The Batman: Part II script to a place he and the studio wanted. There’s also the matter of scheduling, and it could be that the cast won’t be available until the third quarter of 2025 for what’s likely to be a lengthy production. Making movies is tough, and even Batman isn’t immune from the challenges posed by the film industry.
Nevertheless, there’s been a surprising lack of urgency in continuing Reeves’ The Batman movies, especially when you consider how important IP is to studios. If this is all a matter of making sure they want to get the story right, then I’ll happily eat my words. But as someone who felt like Reeves and Pattinson finally nailed the character of Batman in their adaptations, I’m a little annoyed that I’m going to have to wait almost three more years to see him back on the big screen. Perhaps the delay isn’t nefarious, but it’s certainly irritating.