A trilogy? How innovative!

So my problem isn't that Robert Pattinson is the next Batman. Other than that Harry Potter movie where he played Cecil Digglesby or whoever, I don't know that I've seen him in anything else and I don't really have an opinion of him as an actor.

Pictured: Robert Pattison as Cecil Digglesby or whatever
in Harry Potter and the Gobblestone of Azkablam. Or something.
Oh, and I probably should have said spoiler alert. Because he dies.

"Earn sequels? That's ridiculous. Just
for that, there's now going to be six
 Avatars. Six. Wanna try for seven?"

-James Cameron, 

the great sequelizer

What I do care about is the fact that the movie in which he's going to play Batman-supposedly entitled The Batman-is already being touted as the first part of a trilogy. Another trilogy. Everything's a goddamn trilogy, and this is a trilogy before we've even seen the first part. Don't you kind of have to 'earn' your sequels? Huh? You don't? Ok, fine, but I think my point stands: maybe see if people like part one before you start planning your Batman expanded cinematic universe. which, we'll get to that in a second, but first I should probably walk back what I'm sure sounds like unfounded nerd anger about a movie that doesn't yet exist.

"Why don't you just start
an internet petition about it?"

                                   -Some furry

So to be clear, I'm not saying the Robert Pattison as Batman trilogy will be bad. Not at all. In fact, it could be great, I don't know. I hate everything, so it's hard to tell sometimes. I'm just saying that announcing an entire series of movies seems a little premature. My issue is more with planning trilogies and extended universes and spin-offs before the first movie is even out. And this may sound like the fannish overreaction I was complaining about as recently as a week ago, it's not. I mean, I don't think it is. Is it?

As I was eluding to, Pattison's The Batman, is already being pointed to as part one of three and the obvious thing to do in part one of your super-hero trilogy is to retell the origin story. Again. And we know the origin story. We've seen it in like every single Batman movie to date.

Above: three panels that obviate the first forty-five minutes of Batman Begins.

Crisis on Infinite Networks!

But cool. Maybe they'll skip it this time, but it seems kind of inevitable given the beats of trilogy story-telling. Speaking of inevitabilities, there's already internet speculation about a Batman cinematic universe based on this movie. And sure, speculation is just that, but I mean, everything is an extended universe now, so it's not that out of left field. And that's fine, but isn't there like twenty un-related DC comics universes right now between TV and movies There's the movie universe: Superman, Ben Affleck Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquadrogo. Then there's the Arrowverse CW shows which are separate from Krypton, a show about Superman's Grandpa. Then DC has a streaming service with its own shows like Doom Patrol and Titans that share a continuity with each other, but not anything else.

And then there's at least two more Batman-related TV shows, Gotham and Pennyworth, which may or may not connect to each other, but are definitely not connected to any of the other shows.

Hey, I know everyone loves Alfred, but the total
number of TV shows about him should be what? Zero?

"I am Feige, decider of universes!
But you can call me Kevin."

-The dope in the hat

That's like five or six separate DC superhero narrative universes that are unconnected to one another but are all based on the (more or less) shared DC universe. And that's not counting the Christopher Nolan (which, bo-ring, you heard me) or the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman movies, or the Christopher Reeves Superman or any of the dozens of animated series. That's a lot, right? Especially compared to Marvel which has like one or two depending on how Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige is feeling about Agents of SHEILD at any given moment.

Although rich people do seem to get
away with shit, so I don't know, maybe
this isn't that unrealistic after all?

Anyway, I mention all this not because I think there shouldn't be more movies about Batman. On the contrary, I like Batman and will totally go and see more movies about Batman (just not his butler). And sure, I know Batman's is a problematic narrative about a rich white guy who acts like he's above the law and literally makes a career out of violating people's civil rights and getting away with it. And that's troubling. On the other hand, Batman is cool, so here, take my money.

The point, from which I have wandered is this: I think it's ok to just make a movie and see where it goes. Maybe they'll make ten more and they'll be great. Maybe it'll suck and we'll just move on and recast in a couple years. It wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't even be the first time in the past five years.

What ever you thought of Ben Affleck's turn as Batman, or about the
choice of Robert Pattison, you have to admit, anything is better than the
gravely-voiced Batman who faked his own death to avoid paying damages.