Matt Reeves’ The Batman franchise has the chance to take a bold swing when it comes to the Joker, starting with The Batman: Part II but leading into a third movie. While it hasn’t yet been made official that Reeves’ series will be a trilogy, The Batman 3 is widely expected to happen. It’d likely take the first sequel being a surprising box office bomb to prevent it, with the director having previously spoken of his hopes to deliver a trio of movies, which would be only the second live-action Bat-trilogy after Christopher Nolan’s.
Any Batman movie is going to need a great villain, and there’s no one who defines the Dark Knight – and The Dark Knight, for that matter – quite like the Joker. He’s the most iconic villain in the Caped Crusader’s rogues gallery, and a showdown with Robert Pattinson’s hero was teased in The Batman‘s ending, with Barry Keoghan taking on the role. Given the likelihood of two more movies in the saga, then the Clown Prince of Crime turning up again seems very likely, but Reeves is already taking a different approach.
Why The Joker Won’t Be The Villain in The Batman: Part II
Despite the setup of the Joker being in Arkham, he won’t be the villain of The Batman: Part II. Reeves has confirmed that the movie’s antagonist will be one that’s “never really been done” in a movie – presumably, he means live-action, which opens up some tantalizing prospects. Some of the most likely options include Hush, the Court of Owls, and Hugo Strange, any of whom would be a fascinating foe for Pattinson’s Batman to face.
This decision is surprising, in a sense, because, the Joker is, well, the Joker, and it’s rare that we don’t get to Batman facing off with him pretty swiftly. Before Pattinson, the only live-action Batman actors to get two movies were Michael Keaton and Christian Bale, and both of them faced Mr. J within their first two films. However, perhaps we should’ve been listenening to what Reeves was telling us all along. Back in 2022, he said Keoghan’s Joker wasn’t necessarily a tease for a sequel:
“It’s not an Easter egg scene. It’s not one of those end credits Marvel or DC scenes where it’s going, like, ‘Hey, here’s the next movie!’ In fact, I have no idea when or if we would return to that character in the movies.”
The Joker Shouldn’t Be The Batman 3’s Main Villain Either
The Joker not being the sequel villain is an unusual step, but I think Reeves should go further with it, and avoiding having him be the main villain of The Batman 3 as well (assuming it happens). Yes, he’s the most iconic Batman villain; hell, the most iconic comic book villain. But that’s sort of the problem: we’ve seen him a lot. Indeed, including Keoghan, we’ve already seen him in three different movies this decade (with Jared Leto in Zack Snyder’s Justice League and Joaquin Phoenix in Joker: Folie á Deux). We’ll also possibly see him again in the DCU’s own Batman movie when it eventually happens.
There’s something to be said for Reeves’ trilogy being the one that goes against the grain and does something different with its villains. When you have a character like Batman who is going to be rebooted at least once every decade, it pays to mix things up and keep it fresh – which is partly why The Batman itself was so great, because it was a different sort of Bat-movie compared to previous versions.
It’s also simply the case that there are so many great Batman villains who deserve a live-action movie, and there just isn’t room for all of them. So, rather than going back to Joker for the 182nd time, why not keep using villains who’ve not been done before? If Hush is the villain of The Batman: Part II, for example, then the movie could tease the Court of Owls in the background, and have them come to the fore in Part III. Alternatively, it could use villains who have been in a movie, but weren’t done justice, like Mister Freeze or Poison Ivy. There are dozens to choose from, so it doesn’t always need to be the same guy.
Would this be a waste of the Keoghan tease, and admittedly interesting character design? Not necessarily. This wouldn’t have to mean the Joker never appears, but he could be much more contained, similar to the deleted scene from The Batman with Batman visiting him in Arkham, where we learn they have a history (something that could even be shown in flashbacks). The mere fact that Joker exists in this world enhances it, making it feel like a Gotham that’s more lived-in and textured, something Reeves himself spoke about wanting to achieve:
“I thought it’d be really neat if so much of the fabric of Gotham just already existedAnd it was like an old Warner Bros. gangster movie and if you took a certain turn, you might see a character in his origins. I never was trying to say like, ‘Hey, guess what, here’s the Joker. Next movie!’ The idea was more to say, ‘Hey, look, if you think that trouble is going to go away in Gotham, you can forget it. It’s already here. And it’s already delicious.’”
It’s a compelling idea, and speaks to Reeves’ worldbuilding: he’s already made a Gotham that’s weirder than Nolan’s (if anything, it’s almost like a perfect hybrid of that and Burton’s, while still being distinct), and his approach to the Joker adds to the history of the city, and of Batman himself. If we do get Keoghan vs. Pattinson in The Batman 3 then I’m sure it would be great, but not doing it could be the even better choice.
The Batman: Part II will be released in theaters on October 1st, 2027.
What do you think? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!