The Batman Part II Halts Production as Matt Reeves Steps Away, While James Gunn Secures His Place at DC

Production on The Batman Part II has been halted after writer and director Matt Reeves stepped away from the film for what is being described as a personal family matter. It comes just as James Gunn, with the Paramount Skydance merger with Warner Bros. now complete, appears not only to be staying at DC Studios but to be playing quite nice with his new bosses.

Below I look at why Reeves has stepped away, what the plans for The Batman Part II might be from here, and whether any of this connects to the merger. Later in this piece I will also explain what I think is exactly why Gunn is getting along so well with Skydance.

DC Studios survived Supergirl and the merger, only to hit a pause on The Batman Part II

"Poor DC just can't seem to catch a break." The poor reception to Supergirl made the DCU's future seem shaky, but that was immediately squashed by the immense success and positive response to Lanterns. Then came the uncertainty about the DCU and Gunn's continued involvement if the Paramount Skydance merger went through, which it now has. Gunn is sticking around, and that was originally what I planned to write about today.

Instead there is more news, and at this point I could start calling this whole saga the mess happening at DC Studios. I say that as a guy who absolutely loves DC Studios, loves the new DCU and loves James Gunn. The questions now are whether Reeves will come back, whether Gunn or another director will need to step in and finish the film, whether they scrap it altogether and move on to the DCU Batman, and how, if at all, any of this connects to Paramount Skydance's merger with Warner Bros. and its purchase of DC Studios.

James Gunn is playing nice with Skydance to protect Man of Tomorrow

Gunn shared Skydance's announcement of the new combined company, which I thought was really dumb, and I have seen some people take that as confirmation that he is totally on board and has sold out. I am not a fan of this merger, and I am not a fan of seeing Gunn share that announcement and seemingly embrace it. But at the same time, and I admit I am talking out of both sides of my mouth here, I am kind of glad he is playing nice.

Here is why. Even if Gunn hates this deal, why would he tell us that right now? Why would he anger the guy who could scrap Man of Tomorrow on his own with an email? Man of Tomorrow is Gunn's baby, and he is very proud of it. The last thing he wants during the marketing and buildup is months of headlines saying he is leaving DC, the DCU is already dead, Skydance is scrapping his plans and Man of Tomorrow is the end of the DCU, so what's the point in even seeing it.

So I think he might be swallowing his pride to save his movie, and I respect that. If he put out a statement saying he wasn't on board with the merger, or that he was leaving DC Studios after Man of Tomorrow, nobody would be talking about the actual movie anymore. They would be talking about whether any of it even matters, and the wind in Man of Tomorrow's sails would vanish.

Even if Gunn already knows in his own head, and perhaps between him, his wife and maybe his manager, that he is eventually going to leave DC, perhaps sooner than we would like, I don't think there is any chance he would show those cards now. You smile, you shake hands, you post the corporate announcement, you tell everybody how excited you are, and you get Man of Tomorrow into theaters without the baggage. If Man of Tomorrow is great and has a marketing campaign free of drama, it could secure Gunn's future and prevent any intervention from Skydance into the DCU moving forward.

Gunn answers only to David Ellison, who it would appear is likely letting him keep the creative freedom I think he took the job for

Ideally, Gunn would probably like to stick around at DC for at least a few more years, because I have always thought the reason he took the job in the first place was pretty obvious: creative freedom. He was already one of the most successful filmmakers in Hollywood. He didn't need to become a studio executive, nor did he have any interest in becoming one, at least not with the typical job description of a studio head.

Becoming the creative head of DC with Peter Safran by his side gave him something he couldn't really get anywhere else, the absolute freedom to make whatever he wants. He could make whatever he wants by starting his own production company, but at DC he gets to play in this sandbox and do anything. If he wants Superman, he makes Superman. If he wants Creature Commandos, Creature Commandos is approved. He only had to answer to one person, David Zaslav, who was happy to let Gunn do whatever he felt was right.

Then Paramount and Skydance revealed that Gunn does not report to the heads of the Skydance motion picture group. Gunn reports to one person only, David Ellison, and it would appear that Ellison likely told Gunn he is going to sit back and let him do his thing. That is significant, because the other substudios, the smaller pieces of the larger Paramount and Warner Bros., will all sit under the Skydance motion picture group, which will then report to Ellison.

Gunn and Safran get to jump over all of that. DC Studios negotiated itself into a position where it does not answer to a chain of command, only to Ellison, and that has to be pretty appealing to someone who just wants to make his movies. There are still many DC stories I am sure Gunn really wants to tell, and if he has to swallow a little pride to make that happen, I don't blame him. Really, it sounds like Ellison is the one who did a lot of swallowing his pride to get Gunn to stay.

I don't think Gunn stays forever, but I don't think he leaves in the next two or three years

Do I think Gunn wants to do this forever? No, I actually think the opposite. I think eventually this job is going to wear him out and he will be ready to step away, but I think he has a few films he would really like to make before passing the torch. In fact, he just confirmed that he has begun writing his next movie after Man of Tomorrow.

So the question isn't whether Gunn ever leaves DC Studios; of course he will eventually. I'm not even sure he is there in 10 years' time, and if you put me on the spot, I would say probably not. But I also don't think he is going to be gone in the next two or three. And somehow, the question of when Gunn will go is not even the weirdest thing happening at DC right now.

Matt Reeves steps away from The Batman Part II for what is being described as a personal family matter

Reeves has stepped away from production for what is being described as a personal family matter, and I want to be careful here because we have absolutely no idea what that means. I don't know if it is a health issue, or whether something serious is going on involving someone in his family or his personal life. I don't know anything. I want to respect his privacy, I wish him and his family all the best, and that is way more important than any movie.

Having said that, and while wishing Reeves all the best, "stop the bleeding." The Batman Part II has been an absolute mess. The movie took forever to start filming because we waited years for Reeves to finish the script, and it eventually got to the point, maybe a year ago now, where I argued that DC should just scrap the thing because it wasn't worth it.

Why I argued DC cannot wait forever for its biggest character

Don't get me wrong, I want to see The Batman Part II. I loved The Batman, I want the second and third films, and I loved The Penguin. But it had reached the point of being ridiculous, I was over it, and I was ready to move on and get the DCU Batman going. I know people get angry at me for saying that, but my argument at the time was that DC cannot wait forever, because Batman is its biggest character.

I loved the idea of the DCU not introducing Batman right out of the gate and instead finishing the Reeves trilogy, giving audiences their Batman fix while the DCU took time to build itself without leaning on Batman. I thought that was a good plan. But if we sit around waiting for Reeves to finish this trilogy, it will be 2035 before we get the DCU Batman, and that just does not work.

To be completely fair to Reeves, this new situation is different from taking a long time writing a script. If he has a serious family situation going on, I am not criticizing him for stepping away. What I am questioning is what DC Studios needs to do if this becomes a long absence.

The timing with the Skydance merger is odd, but I found nothing credible linking the two

"Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for a second." The timing is a little odd. Warner Bros. officially merges with Paramount Skydance, the entire power structure of the studio is changing, and the heads of Warner Bros. have been asked to resign. Basically right as all of this happens, Reeves steps away from The Batman Part II.

My first thought was to check whether Reeves had ever said anything about the Skydance deal, whether he was angry about it, or whether some disagreement was happening behind the scenes. As of right now, I couldn't find anything credible connecting the two. Nothing tells me he walked away because of David Ellison or the merger, nothing says he is fighting with Gunn behind the scenes, and nothing says Skydance came in and started meddling with his movie. So I am not going to pretend that is what happened. It could very well be a massive coincidence.

People are going to wonder anyway, because there has already been so much discussion about what Skydance might want to do with Batman. One possibility I have seen thrown around is that the new ownership asks why there are two Batmen, and why that Batman isn't alongside the DCU's Superman and other heroes in a Justice League. That would mean putting Robert Pattinson's Batman into the DCU, which I actually don't think would be a terrible idea, but it could create a disagreement with Reeves, especially if he loses control of his story.

That is all fairly irrelevant, though, because I don't think Gunn would be on board with bringing Reeves's Batman into the DCU. Gunn has said he has considered it, but never seriously. He has been very clear that Reeves's Batman exists in an Elseworlds capacity, separate from the DCU, and that DC is developing its own Batman with The Brave and the Bold. I would have a hard time believing Gunn suddenly told Reeves that his Batman is now the DCU Batman and his movie needs changes. Gunn would not do that.

If Reeves needs more than a month, DC has to start looking at other options

Whatever the reason for Reeves's absence, the practical question is what happens if he can't come back, and how long the studio waits. If he needs a few weeks or even a month to tend to his personal business, then give him that time, even though this movie already took way too long to start production. But anything over a month, I think you seriously have to start looking at other options.

They are well into production and have spent a lot of money. They have built the sets, assembled a very expensive cast, and they have Reeves's script and storyboards. If Reeves decides he can't finish the movie, that is a much cleaner fix. Another director comes in, perhaps with Reeves helping to pick them, and it should be someone who isn't there to put their own spin on it but to finish the film the way they think Reeves would have. Not a Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon Justice League situation where they completely change the movie.

The messier version is if Reeves takes too long to come back but doesn't voluntarily give up his position as director. Then Gunn has to make the difficult decision of whether to wait, cancel the movie altogether, or bring someone in to finish it from Reeves's script and storyboards. I can confidently say we don't even have to consider Gunn changing the movie from what Reeves envisioned. Even if Reeves wants them to wait, whoever comes in should make it the way Reeves would have. It will still be pretty messy if Reeves wants them to wait and Gunn, Safran and Ellison say they can't.

The Batman Part II needs to be the end of Reeves's Batman

Whether Reeves voluntarily lets someone else finish or Gunn has to take the director's chair away from him to get the movie out, that has to be it. The Batman Part II needs to be the end of this Batman, assuming Gunn doesn't want him to be the DCU Batman, which is pretty clear he doesn't. Frankly, I'm not convinced Robert Pattinson wants to spend the next decade being Batman in big ensemble films anyway.

We cannot play the game again of waiting the better part of a decade for a third film. Reeves is a phenomenal filmmaker, but this franchise has moved at a glacial pace, and meanwhile Gunn is trying to launch another Batman. At some point you just have to move on.

My preferred outcome is that whatever Reeves is dealing with turns out okay for him and his family, that he comes back and finishes The Batman Part II, and that it is great, which I'm sure it will be. Then you end it, and maybe let him know it is the end so he can close it the way he wants. After that, I hope Ellison and Skydance let Gunn continue to cook, introduce his Batman and build toward the Justice League movie we have all been waiting for.

Should The Batman Part II be the final chapter for Reeves's Batman, or would you rather DC wait for a third film?