The Old Mixer wrote:
7 Batfilms in the last quarter century...they're just coming off a successful Bat-franchise that casts a large shadow....They'd be best to give him a rest when it comes to solo films.
Why? The longest "rest" that James Bond has ever been given is six years, and that delay only happened because of sales and mergers and lawsuits behind the scenes. Other than that, the only gaps longer than three years have happened because of the studio's financial troubles. They don't take a "rest" between actors or incarnations, they just try to keep going forward as steadily as possible.
Personally I don't understand the idea that a film series needs a "rest" to remain viable. Where's the benefit in letting something popular lie fallow?