Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Digital Spy UK)   "The Dark Knight Rises" runtime revealed. You're gonna get a lot of bat holla for your bat dolla   (digitalspy.co.uk) divider line 104
    More: Spiffy, The Dark Knight Rises, running time, Gary Oldman, Christian Bale, Batman Begins, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Heath Ledger, MTV Movie Awards  
•       •       •

7259 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Jun 2012 at 6:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
Slu
2012-06-05 07:05:46 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off.



pretty much this. In light of that, I felt TDK was about 20 minutes too long. I still want to see TDKR, but I'm a little annoyed that it seems like more movies are running longer than 2 hours when they really don't need to be.


So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.
 
2012-06-05 07:10:05 PM  

Ryker's Peninsula: I don't mind the long run time, but could you please give a 5-10 minute intermission so I can take a leak without missing anything?


This. Intermissions rock. Bring them back to the movies!
 
2012-06-05 07:25:20 PM  

Slu: FeedTheCollapse: scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off.



pretty much this. In light of that, I felt TDK was about 20 minutes too long. I still want to see TDKR, but I'm a little annoyed that it seems like more movies are running longer than 2 hours when they really don't need to be.

So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.


eh, i think it depends on the story being told, and how well it is told. pacing, quality of writing etc. i will concede that theaters are uncomfortable settings for watching a movie for very long.
 
2012-06-05 07:26:12 PM  
Can we please have someone in charge of this damn movie insist that Kevin Conroy dub Batman's voice? Bale is just making it painful to sit through every time he starts choking on gravel. When he's Bruce Wayne he's fine, but as Batman? It makes me want to track him down and cock punch him.
 
2012-06-05 07:26:49 PM  
I think I just might be burned out on this whole DK thing...I am trying to get excited for it, but all I keep thinking is The Batman Identity, The Batman Supremecy, The Batman Utimatum. It is just too much for too long, and I really can't muster up a fark to give about the character anymore. I thought at first that it was the previews that were turning me off, but it isn't. I don't want a return to the kiddy comic book Keaton Batman, but I am just plain weary of this dystopian, gothic, and ponderous theme. And now you tell me it is going to be even longer than the last one....sigh.....

BTW, King Kong has never been successfully made into a movie. The story is too thin, there is not enough visual interest, and honestly even an ape that size poses no real threat to modern society thanks to modern weaponry. It was a fool's errand to even attempt remaking it.
 
2012-06-05 07:27:56 PM  
I'll be out front on opening night, selling nicotine patches at 25 bucks a pop.
 
2012-06-05 07:30:01 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: sotua: Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Probably could be edited down to 2 hours and made better for it.

I haven't seen a Nolan film that had an ounce of fat on it. He packs a lot of story in his movies...and they are all so expertly paced and edited that they do not seem like long movies.

so you didnt see tdk?

It's one of my favorite Batman movie. Thought it was expertly paced.


I thought it was 45 minutes too long. Go figure :)
 
2012-06-05 07:33:14 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: This is a more interesting article from the same link. It's a perfect illustration of why Hollywood suits are idiots.


How so? Leo would have been awesome as the Riddler. Not that they need to be telling directors like Nolan how to make movies but I would have loved to seen Leo in the role.
 
2012-06-05 07:33:51 PM  

texdent: As long as it's not Return of the King long.


How much of it is slow-motion hugging and long goodbyes?

And I am in the Katie Holmes camp when it comes to Nolan's Batman movies. I don't think Maggie Gyllenhal or Katie Holmes can act their way out of a jaywalking ticket, but at least Katie Holmes doesn't look like a cartoon turtle.
 
2012-06-05 07:34:01 PM  

Lurk sober post drunk: Slu: FeedTheCollapse: scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off.



pretty much this. In light of that, I felt TDK was about 20 minutes too long. I still want to see TDKR, but I'm a little annoyed that it seems like more movies are running longer than 2 hours when they really don't need to be.

So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

eh, i think it depends on the story being told, and how well it is told. pacing, quality of writing etc. i will concede that theaters are uncomfortable settings for watching a movie for very long.




I can agree with this, nor do I think 2 hours is that bad of a running time, but few movies can really stand up after 2 hours in length. Good pacing is definitely key, (i.e. Inglourious Basterds felt very brisk for a 2.5 hour movie. Funny People probably wouldn't have been good at 90 minutes, but would've been preferable to its 2.5 hour length.) but it seems like more and more films are at or exceeding the 2 hour mark; especially "event" movies.
 
2012-06-05 07:34:10 PM  

Lurk sober post drunk: Ryker's Peninsula: I don't mind the long run time, but could you please give a 5-10 minute intermission so I can take a leak without missing anything?

i do really wish they would bring back intermissions. i understand times are different, with people sneaking into theaters and trying to pack in a bunch of showings, but man i enjoy having those at plays.


I loved going to movies in Germany for this reason. All movies had at least one intermission, and most theaters sold beer. My favorite theater even had lcd screens in the bathrooms above the urinals just in case you couldn't hold it, tvs in the lobby too that you could see from the concession stand.

/and people wonder why americans aren't as eager to go to the movies anymore.
//last movie I saw there was tdk.
 
2012-06-05 07:44:15 PM  

ODDwhun: Lurk sober post drunk: Ryker's Peninsula: I don't mind the long run time, but could you please give a 5-10 minute intermission so I can take a leak without missing anything?

i do really wish they would bring back intermissions. i understand times are different, with people sneaking into theaters and trying to pack in a bunch of showings, but man i enjoy having those at plays.

I loved going to movies in Germany for this reason. All movies had at least one intermission, and most theaters sold beer. My favorite theater even had lcd screens in the bathrooms above the urinals just in case you couldn't hold it, tvs in the lobby too that you could see from the concession stand.

/and people wonder why americans aren't as eager to go to the movies anymore.
//last movie I saw there was tdk.


a theater selling beer, having intermissions, and playing the movie in the restroom? man...i would make that theater a regular outing, instead of making the theater a rare experience.
seriously, that's awesome
 
2012-06-05 08:11:56 PM  
I am so gassed for this. Nolan is a genius.
 
2012-06-05 08:14:34 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Darth_Lukecash: I haven't seen a Nolan film that had an ounce of fat on it. He packs a lot of story in his movies...and they are all so expertly paced and edited that they do not seem like long movies.

I agree - except for his Batman movies.

What scene needed to be cut from the Batman films?


The entire Hong Kong scene.
 
2012-06-05 08:16:01 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: The entire Hong Kong scene.


Yes, they should have cut one of the coolest action sequences.
 
2012-06-05 08:18:35 PM  

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: Can we please have someone in charge of this damn movie insist that Kevin Conroy dub Batman's voice? Bale is just making it painful to sit through every time he starts choking on gravel. When he's Bruce Wayne he's fine, but as Batman? It makes me want to track him down and cock punch him.


I wouldn't mind that in the least. He's the voice I hear in my head reading the comics.

And I wouldn't mind if they called Mark or a skilled impersonator either.
 
2012-06-05 08:21:54 PM  

Solid Muldoon: I'll be out front on opening night, selling nicotine patches at 25 bucks a pop.


Fark that, I will need a sedative. WANT THIS. Sadly, after this one, the next Batman by whomever will forever be cast into the pit of suck. Bar is so high. For once, all 3 movies in a series will be greatness, one upon the other to such heights. Have not been to the big screen since TDK. It's now finally time to go back.
 
2012-06-05 08:25:39 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: What scene needed to be cut from the Batman films?


I like the movie but the CSI bullet scene could be snipped. It didn't make any sense. And tried to shoehorn the detective side of Batman which is admittedly sorely missing but that scene didn't do it because it was less believable than a typical CSI episode.
 
2012-06-05 08:33:04 PM  
Awesome. TDK was long, but never felt slow. Nolan knows how to move things along.

scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off. Aaron Eckhart did a fantastic job, but his transformation, and subsequent death, were too quick. I would've liked to see the Two-Face reveal at the end of the scene, and have him as one of the main bad guys for TDKR.


I've actually changed my position on this. I used to share your opinion, but I think they went for quality over quantity with Dent. His tragic turn and what it meant for Gotham were meant as a punch in the gut for everything he and the other good guys had stood for, and Batman taking the fall to preserve that was perhaps my favorite part of the movie. I'm really anxious to see how the results pan out in TDKR.
 
2012-06-05 08:34:00 PM  
I thought TDK was long. It took me 2 tries to get through the whole thing. I don't get it.

/Own & love Memento
 
2012-06-05 08:34:43 PM  

ODDwhun: Lurk sober post drunk: Ryker's Peninsula: I don't mind the long run time, but could you please give a 5-10 minute intermission so I can take a leak without missing anything?

i do really wish they would bring back intermissions. i understand times are different, with people sneaking into theaters and trying to pack in a bunch of showings, but man i enjoy having those at plays.

I loved going to movies in Germany for this reason. All movies had at least one intermission, and most theaters sold beer. My favorite theater even had lcd screens in the bathrooms above the urinals just in case you couldn't hold it, tvs in the lobby too that you could see from the concession stand.

/and people wonder why americans aren't as eager to go to the movies anymore.
//last movie I saw there was tdk.


I'm honestly shocked to see anyone hold this opinion. An intermission would take me out of the movie and only serve as a roadbump for my enjoyment.

Solution? Don't drink a lot. We can all last a couple hours without consuming a barrel of soda.
 
2012-06-05 08:37:13 PM  
Unless your name is David Lean, you're not allowed to go past 2 hours. That's the rule.
 
2012-06-05 08:42:19 PM  

Wayne 985: ODDwhun: Lurk sober post drunk: Ryker's Peninsula: I don't mind the long run time, but could you please give a 5-10 minute intermission so I can take a leak without missing anything?

i do really wish they would bring back intermissions. i understand times are different, with people sneaking into theaters and trying to pack in a bunch of showings, but man i enjoy having those at plays.

I loved going to movies in Germany for this reason. All movies had at least one intermission, and most theaters sold beer. My favorite theater even had lcd screens in the bathrooms above the urinals just in case you couldn't hold it, tvs in the lobby too that you could see from the concession stand.

/and people wonder why americans aren't as eager to go to the movies anymore.
//last movie I saw there was tdk.

I'm honestly shocked to see anyone hold this opinion. An intermission would take me out of the movie and only serve as a roadbump for my enjoyment.

Solution? Don't drink a lot. We can all last a couple hours without consuming a barrel of soda.


Yeah but the barrel is only 25 cents more than the liter of soda.
 
2012-06-05 08:49:09 PM  

Vangor: I think the ridiculous mapping and emp phone in China as well as the voice recognition and mapping nonsense back in Gotham could've been ignored. Oh, and the bullet reconstruction for fingerprint thing. Those stole about 5-10 minutes from the film, but, worse, each was a diversion from the story and shattered my suspension of disbelief temporarily.

Have Lucius tell him where Lau had his offices after the meeting. Lucius then cuts power to the building. Hong Kong solved easily in less time. Plus, the Joker could set out a huge message since he clearly wanted Batman and the police to arrive what with the hostage reversal. Put the burning bat symbol in the side of the building or something. Finally, why does Bruce have to find the officers for this big reveal to happen with the attempted assassination? Scene is useful for Gordon and Harvey, but not Bruce.


Get a life and a bucket of popcorn. It's a movie meant to put you somewhere else besides your mothers basement, which you've obviously haven't left in 12 years. Geesh.
 
2012-06-05 08:55:31 PM  

suburbanguy: I thought TDK was long. It took me 2 tries to get through the whole thing. I don't get it.

/Own & love Memento


I needed an intermission when I watched Memento. Didn't need one with TDK.
 
2012-06-05 09:03:45 PM  

Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.


Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.
 
2012-06-05 09:10:53 PM  
Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker...


Conroy is not THAT good and Bale is not THAT bad ....
 
2012-06-05 09:15:22 PM  

scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off. Aaron Eckhart did a fantastic job, but his transformation, and subsequent death, were too quick. I would've liked to see the Two-Face reveal at the end of the scene, and have him as one of the main bad guys for TDKR.


I agree with this since so much more could have been done with the actor and his character. But I can see what the Nolans did, if prior to final drafts and filming they had a preconceived idea that they were only doing 3 movies.
And the use of the entire Dent/Two-Face story allowed Ledger to deliver one of the greatest one-word single lines of all time:
"Hi"
 
2012-06-05 09:21:31 PM  

Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker...


Conroy is not THAT good and Bale is not THAT bad ....


...My mind, she is blown. Why DIDN'T he do that? (Besides the obvious "no sequel then, stupid" reason)
 
Slu
2012-06-05 09:29:26 PM  

peterthx: Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.


There is place for longer movies, no doubt. But does every movie need to be 2 friggen hours long?

What happened to the quality 90 minute comedy for example? Does stuff like The Hangover really need to be over 2 hours long?
 
2012-06-05 09:38:04 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Darth_Lukecash: I haven't seen a Nolan film that had an ounce of fat on it. He packs a lot of story in his movies...and they are all so expertly paced and edited that they do not seem like long movies.

I agree - except for his Batman movies.

What scene needed to be cut from the Batman films?


The whole Hong Kong bit from TDK. Sure, the skyhook thing was cool, but utterly unnecessary.
 
2012-06-05 09:44:11 PM  

Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker...


Conroy is not THAT good and Bale is not THAT bad ....


holy crap and I agree
 
2012-06-05 09:48:57 PM  

Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker ....


I guess he could've, but that still leaves Gordon's family being taken hostage. Joker was in custody and the police knew that Batman, Dent, and Gordon & his family were the only people in that building. They arrive and Dent's dead. That's not something they can totally pin on someone else.
 
2012-06-05 10:21:49 PM  

RatMaster999: Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Darth_Lukecash: I haven't seen a Nolan film that had an ounce of fat on it. He packs a lot of story in his movies...and they are all so expertly paced and edited that they do not seem like long movies.

I agree - except for his Batman movies.

What scene needed to be cut from the Batman films?

The whole Hong Kong bit from TDK. Sure, the skyhook thing was cool, but utterly unnecessary.


It showed a few things.
1) Batman is shown not restricted by jurisdiction
2) It's introduced Lucius Fox Cell phone Radar which is very important part of the movie.
3) It's Batman only successful mission-Showing how he uses Bruce's Persona and Wayne Industry as a weapon against crime.
4) And it shows how successful the Gordon/Dent/Batman trio was.
 
2012-06-05 10:29:40 PM  
Well scratch that off the list of movies I'm going to see this summer. Maybe this winter On Demand.
 
2012-06-05 10:34:09 PM  

peterthx: Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.


This. I'm in favor of longer movies. There's been so many movies that have good concepts, only to end up feeling way too short to really flesh everything out. Longer movies are usually more engaging to me, usually because characters are given more time to develop and scenes are given more weight.
 
2012-06-05 10:38:57 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: RatMaster999: Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Darth_Lukecash: I haven't seen a Nolan film that had an ounce of fat on it. He packs a lot of story in his movies...and they are all so expertly paced and edited that they do not seem like long movies.

I agree - except for his Batman movies.

What scene needed to be cut from the Batman films?

The whole Hong Kong bit from TDK. Sure, the skyhook thing was cool, but utterly unnecessary.

It showed a few things.
1) Batman is shown not restricted by jurisdiction
2) It's introduced Lucius Fox Cell phone Radar which is very important part of the movie.
3) It's Batman only successful mission-Showing how he uses Bruce's Persona and Wayne Industry as a weapon against crime.
4) And it shows how successful the Gordon/Dent/Batman trio was.


Technically, Batman is a vigilante, and as such he has no jurisdiction, so point 1 is invalid.
Point 2 could have been done in a 10 second bit of conversation, so that is out as well.
Bruce's persona and Wayne Industries have always been his only weapons...he has no actual superpowers, remember? Point 3 down.
And point 4 by itself hardly justifies the whole thing.

Face it, a lot of what is in stays in merely to satisfy fans of TDK. Yes, a lot of work is done to try to make every scene somehow relevant, and I think largely that is done very well. But...there is a point where enough is enough, even of a good thing. Sex feels really good, but nobody wants to do it for 16 hours non-stop. Even the most pleasurable things can go on too long.
 
2012-06-05 10:44:56 PM  
Which character will they introduce at the 2 hour mark?
 
2012-06-06 12:50:25 AM  
On the matter of Two-Face's short screen time, I've seen this mentioned in threads before and maybe it bears repeating: How much longer could you expect to see Two-Face live in Nolan's universe? The Nolanverse is a generally-more-realistic environment. Then, we have Harvey Dent, with the skin of half of his face burned off and exposing the muscle and tissue underneath. Painkillers are only going to mask the pain; they're not going to heal the wound. How long will one survive in that condition, never mind surviving well enough to walk/drive around and function at any level beyond laying in a hospital bed?

There's also the greater theme of Dent's existence as corrupted by the Joker. Harvey Dent was a beacon of hope for Gotham City. If his corruption is made clear to the citizens, it only undermines what little order is left. I suppose he could have stuck around for the third movie, in which case Batman would have to contend with rebuilding the hopes that were shattered by Harvey Dent's corruption. But it would have changed the outlook at the end of the second movie completely - and set up a different approach to a third.

Of course, most of this would probably be moot if Heath Ledger were still around for another go at the Joker...
 
2012-06-06 01:36:31 AM  

Wayne 985: Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker ....

I guess he could've, but that still leaves Gordon's family being taken hostage. Joker was in custody and the police knew that Batman, Dent, and Gordon & his family were the only people in that building. They arrive and Dent's dead. That's not something they can totally pin on someone else.


The thing is that the Joker has been basically two or three steps ahead of everybody the whole movie, so even in police custody there's no reason he couldn't have planned something out where Dent or somebody gets shot. At the very least he could have planted an accomplice there.

Do the police know Dent was there or just Gordon?

There's no reason why it would have to be Batman they pin it on. Other than it has to be done for Nolan's script to have the lofty purpose it pretends to.
 
2012-06-06 02:31:13 AM  

arrr_matey1978: Wayne 985: Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker ....

I guess he could've, but that still leaves Gordon's family being taken hostage. Joker was in custody and the police knew that Batman, Dent, and Gordon & his family were the only people in that building. They arrive and Dent's dead. That's not something they can totally pin on someone else.

The thing is that the Joker has been basically two or three steps ahead of everybody the whole movie, so even in police custody there's no reason he couldn't have planned something out where Dent or somebody gets shot. At the very least he could have planted an accomplice there.

Do the police know Dent was there or just Gordon?

There's no reason why it would have to be Batman they pin it on. Other than it has to be done for Nolan's script to have the lofty purpose it pretends to.


I think the police knew they were all there.
 
2012-06-06 03:14:37 AM  

Balchinian:
It showed a few things.
1) Batman is shown not restricted by jurisdiction
2) It's introduced Lucius Fox Cell phone Radar which is very important part of the movie.
3) It's Batman only successful mission-Showing how he uses Bruce's Persona and Wayne Industry as a weapon against crime.
4) And it shows how successful the Gordon/Dent/Batman trio was.

Technically, Batman is a vigilante, and as such he has no jurisdiction, so point 1 is invalid.
Point 2 could have been done in a 10 second bit of conversation, so that is out as well.
Bruce's persona and Wayne Industries have always been his only weapons...he has no actual superpowers, remember? Point 3 down.
And point 4 by itself hardly justifies the whole thing.

Face it, a lot of what is in stays in merely to satisfy fans of TDK. Yes, a lot of work is done to try to make every scene somehow relevant, and I think largely that is done very well. But...there is a point where enough is enough, even of a good thing. Sex feels really good, but nobody wants to do it for 16 hours non-stop. Even the most pleasurable things can go on too long.


We're talking about a two and a half hour movie here. Not sex. Your analogy is flawed from the get go. You don't tell a story fill with complex characters with sex... unless you're a porn star, in which case, carry on.

However, you should know that the major number one rule of storytelling/screenwriting for a movie like TDK is to SHOW, don't Tell. Exposition is the single worst thing you can do instead of having an action packed sequence that will engross your audience as well as develop the characters/story at the same time.

Fark, now this thread got me all excited for TDKR again... I just convinced myself that freezing my body for two weeks wasn't actually worth it...
 
2012-06-06 06:07:47 AM  

ClintonKun: peterthx: Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.

This. I'm in favor of longer movies. There's been so many movies that have good concepts, only to end up feeling way too short to really flesh everything out. Longer movies are usually more engaging to me, usually because characters are given more time to develop and scenes are given more weight.




I'm not against long movie, but I am against movies that are long for the sake of long or because they don't know how to edit their movies; especially if 2+ hour movies feel a lot more prevalent than they used to be.
 
2012-06-06 06:26:42 AM  
Anybody else remember the days when you could catch two films in one night at the theater?

/get off my lawn
 
2012-06-06 08:32:50 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: tallguywithglasseson: Darth_Lukecash: (Or if you do, mentioned what happens in the scene and why it wasn't needed.

I haven't watched either film since shortly after their respective theatrical releases. But I do have a lasting impression from both, that they seemed to be dragging out as they got to the last act. Maybe tried to stuff too much into each movie. I'm not sure I can remember any one scene in particular as one that needed trimming and/or eliminating, especially not at this point.

That said, I enjoyed both films. I thought they did the best job of any adaptation so far of capturing what my teenage self liked best about the Batman character (mostly from reading Frank Miller's stuff as an adolescent). I'll try to catch this next one in the theater, too.

//would add, Christian Bale's Batman voice was, and still is, ridiculous
//wasn't a huge fan of the rubber mask they used, either

Fair enough. Nolan does spend a lot of time setting things up for the payoff in the final act. Take for example the Burma lesson of Alfred. It gave you insight to Alfreds past, the Joker's mindset and eventually what Bruce would have to do to stop the Joker.

I actually loved that scene...but it added time to the movie.

One thing about the Avengers was that they kept the plot simple and characterization to the minimum.


Yes but they had five films to set up the characterizations for the Avengers. Including the villain. With TDKR the villain backstory is self contained so you need additional runtime.
 
2012-06-06 09:25:05 AM  

scottydoesntknow: While I loved everything about the Dark Knight, I felt that they did a rush job on introducing Two-Face and killing him off. Aaron Eckhart did a fantastic job, but his transformation, and subsequent death, were too quick. I would've liked to see the Two-Face reveal at the end of the scene, and have him as one of the main bad guys for TDKR.


If you don't have a resolution of Two-Face's situation, you don't have a resolution to the movie. It makes perfect sense in terms of story and character arc, even if it didn't lead nice and neatly to a sequel.

Batman and the Joker were fighting for the soul of Gotham. Harvey Dent was the metaphorical Gotham. If Two Face lives to become the villain of the third movie, then the Joker won. The way it turned out, Batman won by, as Alfred put it "not being the hero," and he was able to fix his own problem (that criminals are starting to not fear him because they know he won't kill them).

Without Harvey's tragic turn and demise, most of what the movie built up wouldn't have led to anything, which would have killed a lot of the meaning of the movie. It may have been a better popcorn flick, but Nolan is doing more than that.
 
2012-06-06 10:16:18 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: ClintonKun: peterthx: Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.

This. I'm in favor of longer movies. There's been so many movies that have good concepts, only to end up feeling way too short to really flesh everything out. Longer movies are usually more engaging to me, usually because characters are given more time to develop and scenes are given more weight.



I'm not against long movie, but I am against movies that are long for the sake of long or because they don't know how to edit their movies; especially if 2+ hour movies feel a lot more prevalent than they used to be.


Somehow, in my mind I've taken your argument and decided that all fiction novels, which tend to be an arbitrary 300 pages, can and should be limited to 100 pages. Because that's usually about when I lose interest.
 
2012-06-06 12:14:59 PM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: Balchinian:

However, you should know that the major number one rule of storytelling/screenwriting for a movie like TDK is to SHOW, don't Tell. Exposition is the single worst thing you can do instead of having an action packed sequence that will engross your audience as well as develop the characters/story at the same time.


Except that TDK breaks the show don't tell rule almost for its entire length. I watched it last night again and almost every conversation between major characters seemed to be them TELLING each other and the audience what they represent. It got to the point where my friend and I were laughing at Alfred's dialogue because he kept popping up to summarize the story so far for people who couldn't get it.

Oh, the Joker is a madman with no clear goals? Gosh, I couldn't have figured that one out for myself!

And how many times do they go on and on about Harvey being Gotham's white knight, only true hero, blah blah blah
 
2012-06-06 01:11:27 PM  

Parachute Test Platoon: Why didn't Gordon blame Dent's murders on the Joker...


Because Joker is the villain we wanted, but not the one we deserved. And Dent is the corpse we needed, but not the one we wanted. And Gordon is the police commissioner we deserved, but not the one we needed. something, something, something...The Dark Knight.
 
2012-06-06 01:45:40 PM  

arrr_matey1978: Except that TDK breaks the show don't tell rule almost for its entire length. I watched it last night again and almost every conversation between major characters seemed to be them TELLING each other and the audience what they represent.


this was my complaint with Inception as well. There was a good half hour of it where they had to explain every nook and cranny rather that show through exposition.



Nana's Vibrator: FeedTheCollapse: ClintonKun: peterthx: Slu: So much this. 2 hour movies should be the exception. 2:45 movies should be extremely rare. One of the reasons I don't really watch many movies anymore is the are all too damn long. 90-100 minutes should be enough to get the job done 90% of the time.

Fark the A.D.D. generation. If I want a glorified episode of a TV series I'll stay home. For me a good movie length is 1:45 to 2:15 (including credits).

Of course the story should dictate the length of a movie, but whining that you have to sit for a couple hours in one place is childish. You're the kids in the back set who chirp "are we there yet?" every 2 minutes. Sit back, shut up and enjoy the ride.

This. I'm in favor of longer movies. There's been so many movies that have good concepts, only to end up feeling way too short to really flesh everything out. Longer movies are usually more engaging to me, usually because characters are given more time to develop and scenes are given more weight.



I'm not against long movie, but I am against movies that are long for the sake of long or because they don't know how to edit their movies; especially if 2+ hour movies feel a lot more prevalent than they used to be.

Somehow, in my mind I've taken your argument and decided that all fiction novels, which tend to be an arbitrary 300 pages, can and should be limited to 100 pages. Because that's usually about when I lose interest.


I see my argument as being closer to Aliens: Extended Cut vs Theatrical Cut. By most your (and others) definitions, extended cut is the better cut because there's more to it and it (overly) explains every detail. My argument is that the theatrical version is better because it knew what to cut and when to quit; anything included in the extended cut is generally redundant due to later scenes and the extended scenes destroy the pacing of the film and make it feel overly long.


I think a lot of films that are 2+ hours long (especially post-LOTR and Harry Potter) fall into the Extended Cut faults.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report