Why Bringing Matt Reeves' Batman Into The Larger DC Universe Is A Terrible Idea

The DC Universe as we know it is about to change, as new co-heads of DC Studios James Gunn and Peter Safran prepare a new plan for the future of the franchise on screen. What is that going to look like, exactly? As of right now, much of that remains mysterious, but it does seem as though the so-called Snyderverse as we once knew it is going to be a thing of the past in favor of a (hopefully) less messy future. But you can't have a DC Universe without Batman, now can you? So the question becomes, who is going to be the main Batman from here on out?

Well, a recent report suggested that Gunn and Safran are at least entertaining the idea of bringing Robert Pattinson's Caped Crusader from director Matt Reeves' "The Batman" into the larger fold — but Gunn quickly responded on Twitter saying, "this is entirely untrue." Fortunately, Gunn and Safran seem to have their heads on straight. While I do understand why Warner Bros. would look at this as a viable option for surface-level reasons that seem good, just below the surface it is, pretty evidently, a terrible idea.

What we know for sure is that Ben Affleck's Batman is on the way out (for real this time), meaning the current main DC Universe does not have a Batman. With "Batgirl" canceled, Michael Keaton's Batman is only currently set to appear in "The Flash" and, seemingly, nothing beyond that. Meanwhile, "The Batman" made $770 million at the box office and earned rave reviews from critics. We've got a younger Batman audience's love, why not build around that?

One thing that needs to be considered right up top is that Reeves already has huge plans for his corner of the DCU, which currently only involves Batman and his massive rogues' gallery of supporting characters and villains. Spin-off shows such as "Penguin" for HBO Max are already in the works, as well as "The Batman 2" and potential villain-centric films. Reeves crafted a grounded, gritty version of Gotham City that seems to have no interest in connecting itself to a larger, shared universe. Particularly one that contains characters like Aquaman.

What's more, Reeves even insisted on making his take on the character separate from the former DCEU, indicating that he has no desire to get caught up in the shared universe of it all. Would he be willing to let Gunn and Safran override his original desire? Would Warner Bros. side with Reeves on this one if he wasn't interested in going that route? Would Gunn and Safran strong-arm the situation, causing tension with Reeves? No need for reckless speculation here but, overall, it's hard to picture this marriage working perfectly as things exist.

Plus, it's worth considering that Gunn and Safran would not just be married to Pattinson's Batman: they would be married to this entire universe. Colin Farrell's Penguin, Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman, and even Barry Keoghan's Joker. It's a package deal, adding further complication to making Battinson the main Batman of the future DCU.

Another huge consideration to make here has to do, very specifically, with Pattinson. This is an actor who began his career as part of a gigantic franchise with "Twilight." Then, for many years, he all but avoided blockbusters like the plague, starring in many acclaimed indies such as "The Rover" and "Good Time," just to name a couple. But, no matter how good many of those movies were, and no matter how much they proved Pattinson was an excellent actor, they often didn't make very much money. That's why so many people were surprised when "the guy from Twilight" became our new Bruce Wayne. Mass audiences hadn't seen much of his work.

For a guy like Pattinson, the appeal of becoming Batman surely had to do with getting a nice paycheck, and actually having meaningfully large audiences see the work. That having been said, this is not an actor who seems like the type to be tied down in a multiverse-spanning franchise for years and years to come. Heck, we're already going to have a pretty hefty gap in waiting for "The Batman" sequel, with Pattinson starring in Bong Joon-ho's new movie in the meantime. If he's the DCU's main Batman, that is undoubtedly going to command more of his time. It is tough for me to picture him being fully on board for such a huge commitment.

Is this speculative? Yes. But it remains true that whoever is the main DCU Batman going forward will need to be fully committed for the long haul with multiple franchise appearances. There can't be any uncertainty on that front and, with Pattinson, it feels questionable at best as to whether or not he's the guy for that job. He proved himself as Batman and he's a damn good Batman, but maybe not for a whole shared universe.

The biggest mistake that Warner Bros. and DC made in the aftermath of "The Dark Knight" trilogy wrapping up was to rush a shared universe in an attempt to compete with Marvel Studios. Let us never forget that, the same year "The Dark Knight Rises" came out, "The Avengers" did as well, leading DC to play catch up in the shared universe game ever since. Hence, why we got "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" in 2016 as opposed to "Man of Steel 2." WB wanted a connected universe and, understandably, they felt they couldn't do that without Batman. And so, Ben Affleck entered the fold and things have been a bit shaky ever since.

Perhaps nothing illustrates just how shaky things were (are?) than the fact that Affleck's Batman never got a solo movie. In fact, Affleck departing "The Batman" is what paved the way for Reeves to come in and reboot the character in the first place. The point is that several years back, Warner Bros. tried to put a square peg into a round hole in the interest of rushing a shared cinematic universe. This was a mistake and it's one they could run the risk of repeating.

If Gunn and Safran were to build around Robert Pattinson's Batman, it would present similar issues. Do I envy them having to figure out how to let Reeves' corner of the DC Universe exist alongside whatever it is they're trying to do? I most certainly do not. But a bad idea is a bad idea and, luckily, they seem to understand that.