Why James Gunn And Peter Safran Should Shake Up Matt Reeves' Batman Universe, But Won't
This post contains spoilers for "The Batman"
2022 was ... an uneven year for comic book movies. Everyone finally seemed to get Marvel fatigue, as the juggernaut of the superhero genre pumped out so much content that even the most rabid fans started to question their loyalty. But for every "She-Hulk" scene that inched the genre towards true insignificance, there was a "Dr. Strange And The Multiverse Of Madness," which, while not altogether great, did almost hit the coveted $1 billion mark. Whenever we caught ourselves calling "Morbin' time" on superhero films, a "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" came along to rescue things from the brink.
Even in the wake of 2021's unbelievably successful "Spiderman: No Way Home," some devastatingly mediocre entries in Marvel's phase four have made me suspect that everyone's a little bored with superhero movies at year-end. There's no question that without the genre, we may very well not have a box office to talk about, as superheroes continue to single-handedly keep the multiplex in business (with a little help from horror). But there's been a distinct lack of standout entries this year.
Now, hold on. Aren't I forgetting something? How could I overlook the lone savior? The weird figure of the dark, who rescued the genre from the grip of mediocrity and caused even Martin Scorsese to flinch as he descended upon the bland wastelands of 2022's superhero slate. I'm talking, of course, about Robert Pattinson. Or, to be more precise, Robert Pattinson's Batman. Among the attempts at superhero fare we've been so consistently fed, Matt Reeves' "The Batman" has enjoyed almost unanimous support as an example of how to do the genre right. Except, I don't think it's as great as everyone's making out.
The changing landscape at DC
Evidently, I'm in the minority in my feeling that "The Batman" was just ok. Fans loved it enough to make it the top-rated superhero movie of 2022 on Rotten Tomatoes, and the feeling is similar among the top brass at Warner Bros., where thus far Reeves' Batman universe has remained untouched even as other DC properties are mercilessly culled by CEO David Zaslav. The studio has also undergone a pretty big shakeup recently, with the high-profile exit of DC Films president Walter Hamada and the arrival of co-Chairmen and co-CEOs James Gunn and Peter Safran. It's still early days for the pair, who took over the newly-dubbed DC Studios in November. But already there's been some big news coming out of their fledgling tenure.
Many were shocked to discover, via The Hollywood Reporter, that Warner Bros. and DC Studios are nixing a third "Wonder Woman" movie and shutting down anything left over from the Zack Snyder era. That makes it highly unlikely that Henry Cavill's Superman will be returning, despite he and "Black Adam" star Dwayne Johnson's efforts to convince everybody otherwise. Overall, it seems Gunn and Safran are gearing up for a full-scale reboot of the DC universe.
Amid all this news, there was a cursory mention of Matt Reeves and his Batman universe. According to THR, this would once again remain untouched by the new bosses of DC Studios, allowing Reeves to work on his sequel to "The Batman" and its two spin-off series that are currently in development. While Gunn and Safran are clearly eager to see the end of the Snyderverse, they so far seem content with whatever Reeves is doing over in his corner of DC. But I think they could afford to poke their nose in a little more.
The Batman is just Se7en
Look, "The Batman" was pretty good. It had moments of greatness and offered more in terms of aesthetics and exploration of serious themes than your standard Marvel outing. But I was hyped for this movie and felt let down. Prior to its March release, everything seemed to point in the right direction. Reeves was focusing on the character's long-neglected detective skills and ratcheting up the whole 'fear as a tool' element. We were getting a gritty noir adventure in the style of a David Fincher crime mystery, with influences ranging from "Chinatown" to the real-life figure of Kurt Cobain.
But having seen it multiple times and reflecting on it for the best part of a year, my lingering feeling is that "The Batman" comes off more as a pastiche of a Fincher movie. It's "Se7en," just not as good, and also Batman's there. That's reductive, I know, but there's more. There's too many characters involved to properly explore Bruce Wayne's trauma — a central theme of the film which remains only briefly touched upon rather than unpacked in any meaningful way. The overall aesthetic is great but feels a little too uniform. And that twist! The twist that's actually something you just assumed all along. John Turturro's Falcone was the rat? The big reveal is that the head of organized crime in Gotham is the one pulling all the strings? It's supposed to hit like a twist but it barely feels like exposition.
I could go on, but the point is, I thought Reeves could do better. I want him to do better because this is Batman. This is DC's crown jewel and he deserves the best possible treatment he can get. That's why I wouldn't mind a bit of interference from Gunn and Safran.
Somewhere between Batgirl and Joker
"The Batman" ended up making a very healthy $747 million worldwide, which is a success by any measure. Still, I was really hoping people would show up to get it closer to the $1 billion mark. DC really needs that win as it struggles against the ever-increasing tide of Marvel releases. That said, no one is going to argue against a movie that made three-quarters of a billion dollars.
And that's likely why Gunn and Safran won't touch Reeves and his Batman universe. It's also likely why Reeves has thus far managed to dodge the unflinching David Zaslav who earlier in 2022 casually canned the almost-completed "Batgirl" movie in a move that shocked the entire industry. Then there was Reeves and J.J. Abrams' "Batman: Caped Crusader" animated series which was also unceremoniously scrapped at HBO Max. As it stands, the Reevesverse remains immune to any outside interference, but is that really the best route to take?
DC has had success with allowing individual filmmakers to produce their own visions with minimal interference. Todd Phillips' "Joker" is the obvious example. That movie did cross the $1 billion mark and proved that DC didn't have to ape Marvel's style to be successful. So it makes sense that Gunn, Safran, and Zaslav are planning to leave Reeves alone for the time being. But I think, given the aforementioned shortcomings of "The Batman," they don't necessarily have to be so hands-off, especially when their hero has been outperformed at the box office by his arch-nemesis.
Give Gunn a shot
I'm not saying that Reeves and "The Batman" sequel should be cast aside in the way "Batgirl" or "Batman: Caped Crusader" were. But I do think there's a lot that could be done to make the next Batman movie feel more like its own thing rather than something so indebted to other films and filmmakers. Perhaps the team at Warner Bros. knows that, and that's why the general tone surrounding Reeves hasn't been as positive as you might expect on their end. He's signed a huge overal deal with the studio, but thus far Zaslav and co. haven't seemed all that excited about the future of the Reevesverse. Why haven't they given "The Batman" sequel a release date? Thus far we've just had one Variety article suggesting it will arrive in 2025 at the earliest. I think they're waiting to make sure the script is right before fully committing to it.
And that's why Gunn could be useful here. The "Guardians Of The Galaxy" director could bring more in terms of dynamics to the next Batman outing, and if there's anyone that might have some insight into how to bring in more people and hit that elusive $1 billion mark, it's him. I'm not saying Gunn's more comic style would necessarily mesh well with Reeves'. But the perspective of another seasoned filmmaker could prove useful, at least to the extent that writing off his involvement completely doesn't necessarily feel like the best approach. Why not wade in and shake things up a bit? That's what Safran and Gunn are there for, and maybe they can stop Reeves from making a third-act shift so jarring it turned off even some fans of the first film.