This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

15 Years of Coverage (2010-2025)

Batman News Archive

The Batman: Part II moves back to October 2027

By

Sean P. Aune

·

on The Batman: Part II moves back to October 2027

The wait for The Batman: Part II just got longer as the film has moved back a full year to Oct. 1, 2027.

Warner Bros. Discovery closed out Christmas week by moving some release dates around its schedule. The most notable one is that The Batman: Part II has moved back one full year. By the time of the release it will mark over five and a half years since the first film.

Production was rumored to begin in the early part of 2025, but no updates are available at this time as to a new start date.

For now, the only officially confirmed actors returning for the sequel are Robert Pattinson and Farrell. Although not officially named as of yet, Andy Serkis has made it fairly clear he will be returning to the role of Alfred Pennyworth.

The Batman hit theaters on March 4, 2022 and went on to earn $765.95 million dollars globally. There is already talk of possible expansions beyond these projects with Matt Reeves planning for his micro-universe that will be known as the "Batman Epic Crime Saga."

The Batman: Part II is scheduled to hit theaters on Oct. 1, 2027.

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

Comments (40)

Leave a comment

Join the conversation

A free account lets you comment, like comments, and get an alert when someone replies to you.

Continue with Disqus

or

Sign Up Now
  1. Sara Avatar
    Sara

    Annoying.

    Every time I think this universe is getting its legs back, it stumbles again.

  2. jrvc Avatar
    jrvc

    I have the feeling this universe is not going ahead, as much as I dislike the idea

    1. Josh Morgan Avatar
      Josh Morgan

      doesn't make sense. Reeves literally said they are gearing up for Part 2. Maybe it ends after that(which is a shame), but I think the second film is definitely happening either way

      1. jrvc Avatar
        jrvc

        yeah, the second one can still be a thing, but I can't see it going past that

        1. Josh Morgan Avatar
          Josh Morgan

          I guess we won't know for sure until we get there. If the next movie makes a lot of money, maybe even crossing a billion, it would be hard for WB/DC not to justify letting Matt do a third if he really wants it.

          1. jrvc Avatar
            jrvcreplying to Josh Morgan

            Do you think it would get a billion? I'm not saying the movie would be bad or sth like that, but look at what has happened to DC sequels as of lately, and Aquaman went from grossing a billion to waaay less than that. I know more factors played in, but the gap it's going to be similar between The Batman and its sequel, so all the hype may go out of the window

          2. Josh Morgan Avatar
            Josh Morganreplying to jrvc

            I don't think its the same at all tbh. People will be hyped because it's a new Batman movie. Not just because its attached to a previously well received movie. Movies like Aquaman and Joker 2 did poorly because they were mediocre/bad tbf. Also many people knew the DCEU was a dying franchise. THey will show up if the quality is there and WoM is strong like the first one. The only potential issue I can see would be if Gunn debuts the DCU batman in a big way beforehand, thus diluting the name recognition once Reeves sequel comes around. But if The Batman 2 is the next time we will see Batman on the big screen, there will still be a lot of hype for that alone. I can't say if it will make a billion, but again, if the quality is strong like the first one, it will do well like the first did.

            Plus, you also have The Penguin helping to keep the franchise in people's thoughts. It just doesn't make much sense to me that the hype for a new batman movie would completely go away all because its the sequel to another movie. It's still Batman. Batman is DC's biggest cash cow and one of WB's most valuable assets. Aquaman making a billion kind of seemed like a fluke tbh, regardless of it being a decent film. It makes a lot more sense to me that people would lose interest in that character after waiting that long. Not with batman though. Joker 2 also had the issue of a decent portion of the fandom believing strongly that it didn't need a sequel and worked best as a standalone film. The Batman franchise, however, has a real passionate fandom behind it who are extremely eager to see what is next regardless of it taking a bit longer.

            So ya, all in all, I don't think its the same as some of DC's other recent examples. Though I do still think maybe Reeves could do a few more things to keep interest going in the meantime. Greenlight another show perhaps. Do another Tie In comic. And personally I am still deeply interested in seeing some kind of extended cut for the first film, but thats just me.

          3. jrvc Avatar
            jrvcreplying to Josh Morgan

            Yeah yeah, that's what I meant that there were more factors, and, of course, it's Batman. I mean, the last 3 succesful movies from DC all were Batman related (BvS, The Batman, Joker). The rest didn't earn as much as any of those, in fact it's been waay lower than those.

            But anyway, I'm still not so sure. If there's nothing to make people be hooked up to this universe somehow, I think the DCU would engulf it and it won't be as succesful. Hope I'm wrong though, I'm more interested in this universe than the DCU, to be honest

          4. Josh Morgan Avatar
            Josh Morganreplying to jrvc

            Ya I am definitely in wait and see mode for the DCU. The previous regime and the MCU being what it is these days took a decent amount of the enthusiasm I had for broad cinematic universes out of me. I still want to see DC get its proper due, but I hope they aren't trying to make it some never ending decades long franchise. A concise 10 year plan with a couple Justice League movies and a definitive ending would be plenty.

            The Batman seemed so refreshing to me because it felt like a return to the pre Avengers world where you could have these more uniquely artist driven standalone films that didn't connect to a bunch of other stuff. The prospect of losing that again would be really sad imo, but I guess we will see how the DCU handles variety like Clayface or Mangold's Swamp Thing.

            Perhaps Matt Reeves is also spending more time on the script for TB2 in the event that it does have to be his last, and so he is really just trying to perfect it as best he can or even rewriting some elements to incorporate ideas he had for a third film into this one.

          5. jrvc Avatar
            jrvcreplying to Josh Morgan

            Dude, you just think like me and it's refreshing to see someone with realistic expectations towards the DCU.

            Yeah, what happened to DC movies after Snyder departure was utter sht. I don't know if you were a fan of his DCEU movies, but I was, and, as you say here, it was refreshing to see something different from the MCU and one of those differences it had was, as you mention, that it was going to be a finite universe. Three JL movies with some solo movies peppered in and then a proper Flashpoint movie to bookend everything. I don't know what your opinion about this is, but for me it sounded great.

            But then that sht happened, the following heads at WB didn't know what to do and I supported a universe that went nowhere and, when everything seemed to be going again towards a proper Snyderverse end (remember that all the main players, including Affleck, were on board again), then they cut everything short again... It was baffling for me, and I don't know if I want to support another cinematic universe again (take into account that I watched all the DCEU movies in cinemas and I own physical copies of every one of them). Regarding the MCU, I stopped after Endgame. That universe needed some pause after that, but they didn't, and after watching a couple of proyects after Endgame, I'm basically out of the MCU and I'll just watch movies that really interest me, like Deadpool 3.

            And, quite frankly, I don't like what I'm seeing about the new DCU as of now. I think Gunn is a tad overrated. Yes, I liked the Guardians movies, but their success was very linked to the MCU success. His Suicide Squad was basically ignored by everyone and is quite forgotten now (ironically, main audiences still remember the first one more, especially Joker and Harley Quinn). Peacemaker was fun, but it was too much of Gunn's style for its own good, and I don't think it would be well-remembered in the long term. Creature Commandos, well, we as DC fans know it's there, but basically it's that. I still think it was a bad idea to start this universe with a cartoon series. Add to that that it seems like he's trying to Guardian-ize his Superman movie, adding C and D DC characters because that's what he knows to do, so I don't really trust him to make a solo (which isn't really) Superman movie, or to helm a whole universe. In fact, I'm shocked that the new Superman trailer has been watched by so many, although that doesn't mean is going to translate into people watching in cinemas.

            About your last point, yeah, it looks like Reeves is trying to do that and yes, it's a pity that the only movie universe which exists on its own is going to finish like that. It's nice not to have to follow everything to understand everything, something is going to be difficult for the DCU if they are really going to link everything, with series, comics and videogames.

            So yeah, I'll wait and see, but this new universe doesnt look so good for me

            PS: Have nice end of the year!

  3. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
    TibzTheSecondComing

    This is either not coming out or will be folded into the DCU as you can’t just have 2 Batman’s. Both of which are terrible options.

    1. devilman013 Avatar
      devilman013

      you can’t just have 2 Batman’s

      Says who? We had two Jokers at one point.

      1. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
        TibzTheSecondComing

        We did not in the slightest. Jared Leto was joker for one film and only reprised for a short cameo for a HBOMax film. Phoenix’s was clearly seen as an elseword tale and took place after Jared Leto was done. It would confuse the audience and get them to potentially only follow one.

        1. devilman013 Avatar
          devilman013

          Okay, if people accepted that Phoenix's Joker was an Elseworlds tale, and had nothing to do with the DCEU, then they can also accept that Pattinsons's Batman is an Elseworlds tale, and therefore different from James Gunn's DCU.

          1. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
            TibzTheSecondComingreplying to devilman013

            Completely different situation. Joker came out during a time where there was no competition from another Joker as the DCEU was on its last legs. Gunn has allegedly planned out a universe, with films being released semi regularly that includes a new Batman. How does Pattison’s Batman fit, how would they even market it?
            Factually speaking, it’s a mess. If audiences don’t think a film matters or is a throwaway they don’t show up. E.g. Shazam 2, Aquaman 2, The Flash, Blue Beetle.

          2. devilman013 Avatar
            devilman013replying to TibzTheSecondComing

            A couple things:

            One, the DCEU was not on "its last legs" when Joker came out. They were still making movies within that universe.

            Two, they'll market Pattinson's Batman the same way they've been marketing it: as a separate thing within its own universe.

            And three, even when a film is supposed to matter, people don't always show up,, as we saw with The Flash.

    2. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
      ChE_MovieFan

      I'm not a fan of Matt Reeves' The Batman, but, objectively speaking, folding it into the DCU is the antithesis of what he's trying to do. I can't see him staying on (maybe as a producer, just to save face) if they tried to fold that series into the DCU.

      But I guess we'll see.

  4. D_Roc187 Avatar
    D_Roc187

    Just let him film part 2 & 3 at the same time and do like Wicked and release part 3 the following Christmas. And give us two spin-offs or Penguin season 2 to hold us off. That’s the only way this picks up pace. Sad news.

  5. da da da Avatar
    da da da

    Bummer.

  6. Josh Morgan Avatar
    Josh Morgan

    Well. I wasn't expecting this, but for some reason it doesn't sting "quite" as much as the first delay did. Still, this is really getting weird. Like, why? Didn't Reeves just say he was finishing the script and that they were looking to shoot first half next year? Whats going on? The only thing I can think of is that BobaTalks and Jeff Sneider recently both said there are some personal things going on with Reeves that has led to these delays.

    With any luck maybe they will greenlight another show during this period. And hopefully Part 2 will be a three hour+ thing

    1. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
      TibzTheSecondComing

      Part 3 being a 3hr plus film is a ridiculous thing to say. This is clearly to do with issues surrounding The Brave and Bold and its link to the DCU.

      1. Josh Morgan Avatar
        Josh Morgan

        Why is that ridiculous? I loved the first movie's runtime and would appreciate another one like that especially after how long we have to wait.

        1. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
          TibzTheSecondComing

          3 hrs plus would significantly hinder the number of viewings and the potential success of the movie.

          1. Josh Morgan Avatar
            Josh Morganreplying to TibzTheSecondComing

            Not really sure what you are getting at. The first movie was 3 hours and had plenty of success(despite various other things going against it as well). Plenty of 3 hour movies do great. Some of the biggest movies ever are over 3 hours long.

          2. TibzTheSecondComing Avatar
            TibzTheSecondComingreplying to Josh Morgan

            Factually a run time of over 3hrs hinders box office potential. The Batman was nearly 3 hrs long and the biggest complaint people had was the pace of the movie and how long it was

  7. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
    ChE_MovieFan

    It's weird that we saw Chris Nolan direct a big-budget film after each of his Batman movies, and the most we had to wait on Batman sequels was 4 years between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Matt Reeves has nothing on his plate as a director except The Batman 2, and it's gonna be (at least) 5 years. What is going on?

  8. Kara Avatar
    Kara

    September 2024:

    “The script is finished, and everyone is preparing to start production next year.” — Matt Reeves

    Mid December:

    "There hasn’t yet been a first draft of a script." — James Gunn

    A little latter:

    “We’re finishing the script. We’re going to be shooting next year.” — Matt Reeves

    Now:

    ”The only reason for the delay is there isn't a full script (those of you who follow me here probably know that already). Matt is committed to making the best film he possibly can, and no one can accurately guess exactly how long a script will take to write. Once there is a finished script, there is around two years for pre-production, shooting and post-production on big films.” — James Gunn

    Seems like Reeves is meeting resistance from Mr Gunn who hasn’t accepted the first draft script as being acceptable for shooting since EW posted Gunn’s comments on Threads as an addendum but stood by their own quote of Reeves confirming script completion back in December.

    .

    1. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
      ChE_MovieFan

      There are for sure conflicts. Matt Reeves has directed nothing since The Batman. He's had The Penguin show, but only as a creative EP (didn't write, direct, or run the show), so it shouldn't take 5 years to get a sequel to the first movie. Whatever you think of Nolan's Batman movies, he wrote and directed other blockbusters after each one (Interstellar came out 2 years after The Dark Knight Rises) and yet the longest wait for a Batman sequel was 4 years.

      Without any explanation of studio interference here, this is inexplicable. I think along with being a one-trick pony of a director, James Gunn is also an insecure snake of a producer.

      1. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
        ChE_MovieFan

        I think having two rebooted Batmen is kind of a problem. But it's not insurmountable. You just have to differentiate them and give audiences different reasons to care about both. I think if it's two brand new Bruce Wayne actors, it cannibalizes itself. It's also boring and uncreative.

        What I thought would've been a good workaround is if they did two totally different Batmen (literally). I don't think Gunn has the cojones for it, though. They could've had Dick Grayson be Batman (or an older Damian Wayne), with Bruce as a legacy character (Keaton in the role, possibly). Use different villains, at least until The Batman finishes up.

        Having one new Bruce (Pattinson), one returning Bruce (Keaton), a different and younger character as Batman in the DCU, then they'd spare us some of the rebootitis, at least. But God forbid James Gunn ever be inconsistent with whatever a comic book does... Not like these movies are adaptations or anything.

        1. Sara Avatar
          Sara

          Actually, in the comics they've been stressing Bruce's advancing age CONSTANTLY, while humping the legs of the Dick Grayson fandom. Batman (i.e. Bruce) fans have been complaining angrily about this for a couple years. It's crossed my mind that this could mean Dick will be Batman in the Gunnverse. If they're going for a typically Gunn-y and Morrison-y tone, then Dick would probably be a better fit than Bruce.

          Also, note that some of the heroes, like Hal Jordan, are being shown as middle-aged. It might be a hint that there's a generational rift coming into play, with some heroes well established down to third gen legacy characters (Dick and Damian) and others just starting out (Clark).

          1. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
            ChE_MovieFanreplying to Sara

            Irrespective of Hal Jordan's casting, I think it's something they'd be gun-shy to do with Bruce Wayne. Because there's going to be a large contingent of vocal fans who don't care about 'Elseworlds' or giving creative room to The Batman series, and for them it's their life's dream to see the 'World's Finest' in whatever specific way they've always imagined it, and James Gunn is basically their spirit animal. That's who he makes his movies for, I think. It would be too compromising to do something different with the Batman character.

          2. Sara Avatar
            Sarareplying to ChE_MovieFan

            I basically agree, but I'm wondering about how they could use the structuring of the Gunnverse to introduce characters. If, as they've indicated, they intend to use Morrison's run (which I don't like and, iirc, neither do you) as the building blocks for their Batman, then they could begin with Dick as Batman seeking Bruce, who has "died," tell a condensed version of that story, and then have Bruce back by the end of the first film.

            I'm not saying they will do this, or that I want them to. But this would be a way to preserve essential elements, like Bruce Wayne as Batman, while also introducing elements we can assume are important to the Gunnverse, like legacy characters and why they matter. It would also drive a wedge only an idiot could miss between the Reevesverse and the Gunnverse Batman.

          3. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
            ChE_MovieFanreplying to Sara

            Yeah, I wasn't a fan of Morrison's Batman run, or anyone/anything it introduced at that. It started out fine with a cool take on the LoS and Man-Bat, and the Batman and Robin comic was - although not my jam - an entertaining change of pace with Dick Grayson as Batman and the interplay with (my least favorite character of all time) Damian Wayne. I read it as something totally different than Batman, just to have an open mind. But none of it really lit a fire under me.

            That's a viable way to give a different look and purpose to the DCU Batman, getting Bruce Wayne off the board for a bit. Not one I'd personally be excited for, but it's an idea. I have reboot fatigue, anyway. And superhero movie fatigue. Especially with the homogenized superhero movies... So it would be more fun for me to revisit a previous Batman take than launch into yet another reboot.

            But I never want to see Michael Keaton as Batman again if it's not in a Tim Burton Batman movie. And that's not happening, either. They're not crazy enough, and they're seemingly obsessed with at least a perception of comics accuracy. And I can't imagine Gunn and Burton getting along because of that, or the latter having creative freedom.

        2. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
          ChE_MovieFan

          I'm a fan of movies, and up until the last 6-7 years I had been reading comics weekly for the previous 20-something, but these are separate interests for me. I don't need superhero movies. If they never made another one, I'm fine. I don't personally need a live action comic book universe with all the designs and characterizations ripped straight from the page because I have the comics for that. I'm not really that interested in turning the movies into comics. I like the idea of turning comic book ideas into movies; finding the version of a story that is innate to a different storytelling medium. If something in the comics logically isn't how it would or should be in a physical setting, I think that should be translated sensibly. And shared universes, in my opinion, have only impeded that. My problem with Gunn as a filmmaker is that he sees that as an opportunity for laughs and goes the other way. He's stated in interviews in the past that he loves superheroes but thinks they "are the dumbest things ever", and the inherent silliness is what's real about them. I don't anticipate liking what he has in store for the DCU anymore than I've liked any movie he's made since the first GotG and Slither.

          So that's where I'm coming from, personally. I don't need another Batman movie, and I especially don't need slavish "comics accuracy" in any of these movies, especially if it's for the purposes of comedic relief. If that's how y'all feel, that's your right, but it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I'm tired of reboots and the samey'ness of this genre, anyway.

          1. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
            ChE_MovieFanreplying to ChE_MovieFan

            Like, take Sam Raimi's Spider-Man visual designs. It's not 1:1 comic book, but it's a cool visual representation of the characters. The Spider-Man costume is about as close as one could get, just made to 'pop' more with the textures and finishes, and a little harder on the spider-emblems. But it doesn't look out of place in a physical setting (say what you will about the Green Goblin suit). And I'm good with that. I don't want to just change something for the virtue of making it realistic, just make it make some visual, physical sense. I feel like Nolan did that, too, with his Batman movies. It was a more real world type of setting than Raimi's films, certainly, but it was a translation of those visual elements from the source into something that worked for the story context. It wasn't a departure for the sake of being a departure. "If this could happen, here's what it might look and feel like." And it made it very tactile and immersive for me.

            My sign off on the biggest visual departure is with the X-Men. I do love the comic book art. It's iconic. I do not think any of it makes much sense in a physical setting (and several X-Men comic book creators, like Stan Lee and Chris Claremont, IIRC, agreed with that). They wouldn't think of themselves as 'super heroes', they're ordinary people who had that societal role forced upon them by the simple reality of their genetics. Why would they be so individualized as to have different sources for their costumes with different visual themes, inconsistent branding, etc.? Why would the X-Men, in many cases, dress like hot cosplayers to go fight? They wouldn't. Why would Wolverine wear a mask? He has no secret identity. Of all the X-Men, he has the least use for a mask, the least amount gained from concealing his identity. He also isn't the type of character to care about such fashion things, personality-wise. So I supported the character, visual, and physical logic at the foundation of that film series. And I thought Deadpool & Wolverine, along with being a trash movie in my opinion, made it very clear that the look didn't work, looking outright awkward from most angles, along with the lack of any logical use for any of it; but all the fans loved it. It looked awful, but they're making movies for people who don't care about that. They just want to see the comic book design - which looks visually great in its own context and medium much of the time - canonized on film, and they don't care if it comes off like run-of-the-mill cosplay. That's not me. That's not the kind of movie I want to watch.

            I think Gunn's logic - and I agree with you on your problem with him, he's totally a one-trick pony - is "if the comic design doesn't make sense, we'll have fun with how that would go". That bugs me. Because no one would wear some of that stuff under any circumstance. That's how it wouldn't go.

          2. ChE_MovieFan Avatar
            ChE_MovieFanreplying to ChE_MovieFan

            Well, with Superman, there is the evolution which was first put on-screen in Superman Returns (but actually first done for Superman Lives) of moving from the fabrics previously worn by the character to the more modern foam latex, neoprene costuming materials. Chris Reeve is "my Superman", but it's a product of its time. I thought the Man of Steel costume design was a pretty good one - a little busy with all the texturing and lines, and it lacked a belt which was visually a little less (and I didn't care for the movie). The BvS anatomical muscle suit was too far down that line for me, though. For Corenswet's costume, I'll admit that I don't care for the materials or the high collar, visually speaking. Maybe it'll be a logical thing that looks better in motion, but I don't find it specifically appealing.

  9. Arthur King Avatar
    Arthur King

    This WB DC films management sucks. They should've reboot it all not just The Batman but also The Peacemaker and The Suicide Squad.

    Better yet, bring Battinson into the DCU fold and voila!

    1. devilman013 Avatar
      devilman013

      Why do people keep suggesting this? Pattinson's Batman doesn't fit the tone Gunn has been setting. Leave his Batman alone and let it be its own thing.

  10. Javon Cooper Avatar
    Javon Cooper

    it's over. it's not happening and moving forward. and marvel won. damn shame tho, no brave and a Wack sequel coming PERIOD

    1. devilman013 Avatar
      devilman013

      Marvel won what, exactly? Deadpool and Wolverine aside, they're as much a dumpster fire as DC is.

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com