I don’t think another film franchise reboots so such in such a short amount of time. Every other movie is some sort of new continuity.
Like, look at Joker (2019) then The Batman (2022). In any other film series they would be connected: Joker ends with the Wayne murders and is set when Bruce is a kid. The Batman is 20 years after the Wayne murders and Bruce is an adult, but it’s a different Bruce, different Waynes, different Gotham, different Joker, etc.
Joker came three short years after Batman V Superman, which had Batman as an adult, and begins with the Wayne murders. Joker isn’t a prequel or origin or in any way connected to Batman V Superman, it’s it’s own universe.
Batman V Superman came out four short years after The Dark Knight trilogy ended. The most popular and successful Batman series ever, and also wholly unconnected to Batman V Superman. The Dark Knight series was a reboot. Schumacher’s was a sort of soft reboot. Burtons was also technically a reboot, but… that’s after 23 years of now Batman films or shows
But imagine any other film series acting like this. Imagine watching a Star Wars movie, and three years later you watch another Star Wars movie, but in this one every single character has been recast and imagined, and even their basic relations changed. So, like in the first one Darth Vader is Luke’s father. In the second one, it’s a reimagining where Darth Vader isn’t Luke’s father.
You might say “well Star Wars started with movies. Batman is an adaptation.” Ok, Marvel movies manage to stay pretty consistent throughout the years. Even Superman gets rebooted a lot, but the different Superman movies and shows aren’t remarkably different from one another. The Harry Potter movies were adaptations, eight movies across four different directors, and they stay pretty faithful to one another.
Why is Batman like this?
Why aren’t Batman movies connected?
>Things are better if they're connected
No, OP, you're just a retard.
Who are you quoting?
Republicans are so fucking dumb they can't handle movies that aren't part of some bigger universe
Joker was an exception because DC literally didn’t think Todd Phillips had the balls to do it. That’s why they only gave him chump-change and literally split it 50/50 with another company, they thought he’d just bail.
Surprise surprise when he didn’t bail, and supersonic speedran a massively influential film that the world went insane over, and DC had already been producing Matt Reeves Batman for years and years and years, and then Corona happens and they have to delay it even more, and they can’t even pocket all the money because they split it 50/50, so now if they want to milk the cow properly they gotta beg Todd to make Joker 2. But they can’t just scrap their Reevesverse project because sunken cost - even though it was less profitable then Joker was. And maybe they intended to reboot the entire multiverse into Reevesverse using the Flash movie but ohgod they fucked it up and Ezra’s become The Hawaiian Joker irl and they wanted to compete with Multiverse of Madness with a new celeb Batman but noone cares who Michael Keaton is and Henry Cavill’s contract has expired so they need to replace the whole Justice League but fucking Aquaman turned out to be their most succesful movie so they can’t just replace him and now it’s all gone to shit and Ezra is gonna die in a shootout with the police and the Jews are still gonna billions anyway
Because Reeves is a hack who straight up stole Todd Phillip's idea
Imagine this, OP. If every Batman movie is standalone and switches actors, they can't ride on the success of a previous installment to make shit. Every movie has to be good or people will tear it apart. They'll even be more critical if the previous one was good.
Not connecting a universe or even having strict continuity is the best thing that could happen to superhero movies.
Op for wanting shitty cinematic universe garbage.
CU narrows any creativity.
Was ss and tss part of the snyderverse?
>Ok, Marvel movies manage to stay pretty consistent throughout the years
In the time since the MCU started in 2008, we had:
>FoX-Men universe
>Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2
>Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
>Fant4stic
>Punisher: War Zone
It's OK for studios to make something that isn't part of a larger story, user.
We had 3 different versions of Spider-Man within 9 years
let’s define some terms, because I’m not talking about a “shared universe” and you’re the second user to bring them up.
A shared universe is when you have some specific setting, and then you make a bunch of different movies and tv shows within that setting
Guardians Of The Galaxy (2014) has nothing to do with Avengers (2012) in terms of plot or characters, but they are set in the shared Marvel universe. The Mandalorian tv show has nothing to do with the movie Rogue One, but they exist in the shared Star Wars universe.
I’m talking about a series though. If movie 1 is about a character’s origin and first adventure, and movie 2 is about that same characters second adventure and continuing journey, it naturally follows that movie 2 is the sequel to movie 1.
Rocky II isn’t a shared universe with Rocky, it’s just a sequel.
Rambo: First Blood Part 2 isn’t a shared universe with First Blood, it’s just a sequel.
The Dark Knight isn’t a shared universe with Batman Begins, it’s just a sequel.
Joker is the origin story for the Joker, and shows child Bruce Wayne, who watches his parent’s deaths. The Batman is about grown up Bruce Wayne, still dealing with his parent’s deaths, 20 years after they occurred. By these facts, they ought to be movie 1 and movie 2 in a series, not a shared universe but a series, and yet they are not.
Because comics themselves go through universal resets and different interpretations. Who are you to limit what movie creators can do with their own spin on a respective franchise?
Does the concept of adaptation scare you?
>Because comics themselves go through universal resets and different interpretations.
Not as severely or as often as the movies. Year One was his set origin comic from 1987-2011. Then he got a new origin with Zero Year.
Since 1989, live action Batman has had five different origin movies
>Who are you to limit what movie creators can do with their own spin on a respective franchise?
An audience member
Remember when they just readapted the first Harry Potter story five times with no sequels?
Remember when there were six versions of Fellowship Of The Ring with a new cast every time, one adaptation of the Two Towers, and no adaptations of Return of the King?
Difference being all were part of the same series of adaptations.
Do you get mad that the Rankin Bass and Jackson versions of LoTR exists? Do you get mad over the variations we have of War of the Worlds or Treasure planet.
This is a weird hill to die on user.
Too long, didn't read. Despite the Reddit spacing meme, you're allowed to do a line break here and there.
No clue if I'm going to agree with you or not since I didn't read your post, but wanting every movie franchise to be some huge interconnected thing where you have to buy/pirate tens or hundreds of different movies and watch each of those 2+ hour movies (plus their after-credit scenes) to get the whole picture of what's going on is not a good thing.
That said, Batman's definitely stuck in an endless loop of movies, shows and cartoons all rehashing the same stories over and over and it would be a nice break if they had remade/remastered Batman TAS, or maybe Batman Beyond, just some kind of long-form series that covers all kinds of villains and heroes, new and old.
sequel comes after a movie, cool what’s retarded point?
What are you talking about? It’s a joker movie doesn’t need Batman. Are you upset not showing Batman ? I don’t get it.