Steven Soderbergh Steps In to Finish Filming The Batman Part II for Matt Reeves

Steven Soderbergh has revealed that he offered to step in and help Matt Reeves by finishing the filming of The Batman Part II. Reeves is dealing with a very difficult family situation that has pulled him away from the shoot, and he can't be on the set in London anymore.

Reeves has said he's still very much involved with the movie, but he simply can't physically be on set, so they need another director to take over. Soderbergh offered to do it. I don't think he did it totally altruistically, but I think he did it altruistically to some degree. Below I'll go through why the film can't just wait, why this isn't a repeat of what happened to Zack Snyder, and the good and the bad of handing the camera to Soderbergh.

Matt Reeves's family situation has pulled him off The Batman Part II set

It hasn't been revealed what's going on with Matt Reeves. It's a personal family matter, and it really isn't any of our business. But it's serious enough that it has already significantly delayed the movie. It had seemed that Reeves could move forward and shoot the film, but unfortunately, two thirds of the way into filming, his family situation required him to come back to Los Angeles.

The situation has caused everyone at DC and at the studio to rally behind him, and eventually the fans too. A couple of months ago I mentioned that you probably wouldn't want to say anything mean about Matt Reeves, or you'd look like a jerk at some point. I'm glad that eventually settled in and everybody's being a lot nicer to him now. I think that's really beautiful. He certainly doesn't need stress from fans on top of what he's dealing with.

It must be a very serious situation. Reeves really cares about this franchise. He has done a wonderful job, he's been so kind to the fans, and I think he really needs our support in a situation nobody would want to be dealing with. Soderbergh, for his part, did say that he's a very big fan of what Reeves did on the first film. I think if you look at it, you can see some similarities to Soderbergh's own work, so it's not a horrible match.

Why The Batman Part II can't simply wait for Reeves

You might be wondering why this movie can't just wait until Matt Reeves is ready. I think there are a couple of reasons. The main one is that Reeves clearly doesn't know how long this is going to take. On top of what he's having to deal with, I don't think he needs the added pressure of burning money while the movie is on hold.

The other issue is that the movie has already started filming. When you take a break like this, everybody has to be in a holding pattern, and the crew needs to be paid. Maybe there's a period of time where they can just be on hold, but at a certain point you either have to start paying them a salary as if they were working, or you have to let them go. That's where you really have a problem. Once cast and crew are let go, they scatter to other productions, and it would be very hard and very expensive to reassemble them.

It would be almost like shooting two movies instead of one. It would give The Batman such a horrible budget that it would almost be crushed under it, and it would make it very hard for the movie to make enough money to be considered profitable. With two thirds already filmed, only about 33% of the movie is left to shoot. You can't hold Robert Pattinson, you can't hold Scarlett Johansson, and you can't hold Sebastian Stan. Luckily it's awards season, so they could fill their time with appearances and interviews, but eventually they'll need to get back to work, and if it's not on your movie, they'll go do something else.

Reeves plans to oversee from Los Angeles and take back control in post-production

The big thing is that they're filming in London and Matt Reeves needs to be in Los Angeles. He has said he will have some oversight from Los Angeles. I don't know if he's the kind of director who uses a lot of storyboards, but he might have extensively storyboarded out what he needs.

It also means that once filming is finished and the movie goes into post-production for editing, that work can be done in Los Angeles. I hope the situation isn't as serious by then; that would obviously be ideal. But he could edit from the office or, if needed, even from home, since they could just move his editing staff into his home. So that's what Reeves is currently planning to do: let Soderbergh finish the film in London, then get back hands-on when it returns to Los Angeles for post-production.

Can he review dailies from afar? He can, but he can't be as hands-on. It would be hard and expensive to reshoot those scenes, so there has to be some level of trust that Soderbergh is going to do it right.

This is not a repeat of Zack Snyder's Justice League

A lot of DC fans had déjà vu to the Zack Snyder situation and got a little nervous. When Snyder was doing Justice League, he had a tragic situation with his daughter and needed a break to deal with it. While he was on that break, he was replaced by Joss Whedon.

It's not the same. Reeves will be handed back control of his film once it goes into post. Snyder was totally taken off his film, and what came out did not honor what he wanted to do. In fact, the whole reason they replaced Snyder is that they wanted to go in a different direction, a more Marvel direction, with Whedon. I think they were concerned about how the film was going. Batman v Superman had not been well received by a number of people, which is true, and because Whedon was available and had directed the Avengers movies, they felt they could turn the whole thing around by taking the movie away from Snyder.

That was a horrible thing to do. It didn't work, it was offensive to many fans, and Whedon didn't do a good job. It really blew up in their faces, and everybody associated with that decision was ultimately fired, let go, or left. None of those people are still part of the DC machine. And for the record, I thought the Snyder Cut was phenomenal. I don't know if it would have escaped the same criticisms Batman v Superman had, but for those of us who enjoyed Batman v Superman, we really liked what Zack did with his final cut of Justice League.

The good: The Batman Part II can hopefully finish on time with a strong director

The movie can hopefully finish on time. This thing has missed enough release dates and has taken long enough to get made. It must make that February release date. Maybe it could buy itself another month or two, but it needs to finish filming.

And this means it will finish filming in the hands of a really strong director, certainly somebody strong on paper. It's not like they got some nobody, or somebody without enough experience, or someone bad. I think Soderbergh fits aesthetically very much with Matt Reeves. It also doesn't hurt to stick the Soderbergh name on it. I think Soderbergh has a gravitas to his work that fits what fans want from DC, particularly when it comes to Batman, so in some ways it gives the film more cachet.

The bad: Soderbergh's recent track record and his lack of action experience

The bad is that it's been a really long time since Steven Soderbergh made a good movie. In fact, he's made a number of very bad movies, so I don't know if I'm confident in the quality of the footage they'll be getting back. I also don't know if Soderbergh could even direct an action sequence. He's never had to do it before. I guess they can trust the second unit. Usually Marvel lets the second unit completely take over, although that didn't work out for them.

Soderbergh is also the one behind that quote I always like to bring up. He said he was at an airport and saw a fan in Hollywood's target range, a guy in his 30s, although I don't know if that's still the target range these days. This fan had one of these comic book movies on and was just fast forwarding to all the action scenes. I'm sure that fan had seen the movie before and was going back to the sequences he loves most. And that's true: a really good comic book movie needs those sequences to succeed. Sometimes I go back to the Batmobile sequence from Matt Reeves's first The Batman. I love that sequence. It's incredible, and it was a big part of the first trailer, which blew us all away back in the day.

Maybe Reeves shot all of his action sequences, or maybe he storyboarded them. I don't know. They do a lot of previsualization these days, so it's probably already mapped out, and hopefully it's almost like paint by numbers for Soderbergh. But that's the one thing that makes me nervous. This isn't the Soderbergh coming off Ocean's 11, where I'd say let the man do whatever he wants. He's coming off Black Bag, which looked pretty but was poorly done and, to me, was a snoozefest, and that iPhone movie with Claire Foy from The Crown set at some kind of hospital. It's been bad movie after bad movie, and he's never directed an action sequence. So I'm scared.

Why I would want Soderbergh's name on The Batman Part II

Would they be credited as co-directors? First of all, the Directors Guild would have to weigh in on that. But if I were Matt Reeves, I would put Soderbergh's name on this for two reasons. One, to thank him for stepping in and really saving Reeves at a very difficult personal time. Two, in case it's not good, I'd want someone else's name up there with me, so all the parts you don't like are that guy's fault. I'd be like, "You stand up here with me at the premiere, buddy."

It doesn't hurt to have Soderbergh at the premiere. I've told you I'm scared for an action movie, but a Matt Reeves and Steven Soderbergh Batman movie looks pretty good. One objection is that the guild won't let a co-directing credit happen and it would have to be a special thanks in the credits. That's fine. I don't mind that as long as he's on the red carpet standing next to me. This man directed a third of this movie.

Soderbergh clearly wants back into blockbusters

This isn't the first time recently that Soderbergh has wanted to get back into the blockbuster space. He made a hard pitch to Disney for a project, with Adam Driver and a script in pocket, and they still said no. So for all his talk about wanting to retire and not liking action movies, I think it's pretty clear Soderbergh wants to get back in, and in a big way.

Some people point to Haywire, with Gina Carano and Michael Fassbender, as proof he can handle action. I don't know if I'd agree. It wasn't horrible, but it's not the level the action in a Batman movie needs to be. Remember when Batman beat up that guy on the subway platform in The Batman? That was great stuff. That was a great movie, and I have strong hopes for the sequel.

It's only in Soderbergh's best interest to deliver a good movie here, because then he could get another one where he's the director the whole time. I think right now he's probably having trouble getting work because he's made so many poor movies. I wouldn't hire Steven Soderbergh right now. Maybe that's one of the reasons he couldn't get The Hunt for Ben Solo cleared. But if he can prove he can do a good job helping out with The Batman, maybe somebody would hire him again, and maybe he'd get that project cleared. Obviously I think he's trying to do something really nice for Matt Reeves, and I don't want to take away from that, but I think this is very advantageous to him as well.

I think this is the best way forward in a difficult situation

So those are my thoughts. I'm nervous, but I'm glad we're moving forward, and I think this is the best possible way to move forward. If David Fincher were to step in, you'd feel a little better about it, although the Cliff Booth movie doesn't look great. At the same time, Fincher has such a strong personal style that it wouldn't match Matt Reeves.

I think this is the best situation you could get in a difficult situation. Paramount, which is already buried under 80 billion of debt, just can't sit on this movie.

Do you think Steven Soderbergh is the right director to finish The Batman Part II?