comment #1

PoisonSkin says ...

usually I'd balk at that big time but I think this'll be a watermark.

comment #2

Geoff says ...

I expected this. Nolan has said his approach is to make it a stand alone film with character arcs. BATMAN BEGINS was 140 minutes.

And hey, I saw ZODIAC twice in theaters.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Please don't turn the movie into a pointless character analysis and a reflection on contemporary society...

comment #4

Jimmycrackcorn says ...

About the same length as "Sex and the City." If I took that, I can take this.

comment #5

MickTravis says ...

Ehh, who cares about length?

If you hate it -- or even if you happen to love it -- you can always just walk out.

comment #6

Richardson says ...

I just can't resist...

"Why so tedious?"

comment #7

Breedlove says ...

If the movie is one-tenth as good as the fucking masterpiece the Celtics turned in tonight, it will be the film of the year.

Eat your heart out, Massey.

comment #8

CinemaPhreek says ...

Considering that its the only film I have really wanted to see, that promises to be the kind of movie every summer film is supposed to be... I'd say that sounds about right.

comment #9

Aladdin Sane says ...

Good. At least I think that's a good sign. Unless it jumps the shark. Then bad.

comment #10

Mcflyboy says ...

Okay, so it probably doesn't need to be 152 minutes long. But this ain't Iron Man, it's Batman. Chris Nolan's Batman. Play time's over. Put the kids to bed.

comment #11

iamwhoiam says ...

Don't like Batman, Christian Bale is completely overrated, but i guess i'll go see it because of Nolan and the Heath Ledger factor.

comment #12

Mgmax says ...

The history of cinema in two lines:

1950s: long, self-important movies about Jesus
2000s: long, self-important movies about Batman

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

As talented as Nolan is, it's too bad he couldn't apply this type of effort to his There Will Be Blood, instead of a guy that dresses up like Dracula and beats up psychotic clowns.

I like comic book movies and I really liked Batman Begins, but I'm sorry, there's no excuse for this thing to be this long. I suspect like many, I'll see it in the theater, but I doubt more than once.

And with this length, if it's as dark as advertised, Nolan might be running his studio's target audience right out of the multiplex. Let's hope the suits don't have Schumacher (or McG or Ratner) on speed dial for Batman 3.

comment #14

Jesse Perry says ...

So you really like Batman Begins, but you can't abide a Batman film that's only 10 minutes longer?

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Batman Begins included the origin story, which took up nearly half its running time. As you saw at the end of BB, the Joker is already established by the beginning of this film, so it's not an origin story for him as in Burton's Batman. Dent apparently becomes Two-Face, but that shouldn't take long.

It's not just Batman. This blockbuster bloat has been going on basically ever since Jackson's LOTR films. A great example is his King Kong. At two hours, it would have been an all-time action classic. At three, it struggled to keep momentum.

It's not that I "can't abide" a two and a half hour Batman. It's just that this material doesn't call for it.

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

Plus, let me make one thing exceedingly clear. I am a fanboy geek from way back. I am thrilled that modern special effects and the powers-that-be are finally showing me things that I've dreamed about since I was about 4. I have zero animosity to comic book films.

But, that said, I'm also a realist. I recognize these things for what they are. They are not great literature and should not be mistaken for great literature, no matter how well made. They are fun fantasy stories based on melodramas that have been serialized for, in some cases, seventy years.

They are also corporate commodities. Like it or not, they didn't give Nolan $200 million to create something that doesn't sell toys and Happy Meals. When the filmmaker loses site of the fun fantasy aspects of the franchise, more often than not the studio takes the reins from his hands. Witness Ang Lee and Hulk and Tim Burton and Batman.

From everything I've seen, I'm really going to like The Dark Knight. But the length and darkness of it are going to be a real concern. If it underperforms, don't be upset if Batman 3 is helmed by Stephen Sommers. At least you'll be able to look back on Dark Knight and Batman Begins and say, "well, we got two good ones before they screwed it up."

comment #17

David Ehrlich says ...

RICH - while your concerns are valid, from the people i work with to the customers we serve - from my younger cousins to the elderly ladies and gentleman who surrounded me during a screening of the hulk yesterday... the only movie on everyone's lips is BATMAN. this thing would have to be BATMAN AND ROBIN to not perform spectacularly well (at least when compared to previous installments of the franchise).

nolan has improved as a director with every subsequent film of his, yadda yadda yadda... add my voice to the chorus, we're talking about the movie of the summer right here, herzog notwithstanding (obviously).

comment #18

Rich S. says ...

David, I agree with that observation. But see the second paragraph of my first post on this thread. I managed a movie theater in 1992 and Batman Returns was the movie on everyone's lips that summer. McDonald's did a huge promotion on it.

Then it opened. I thought it was better than Batman (and I still like it even better than Batman Begins). Parents were shocked. McDonald's was pissed. And we got Schumacher and Chris O'Donnell.

comment #19

Alan Cerny says ...

I've seen enough of the ad campaign to know not to take my daughter to this. I can't speak for the rest of Wal-Merica.

I do agree with you though, Rich, because to me flow is half the enjoyment of films like this.

comment #20

SaveFarris says ...

Griping about the length is garbage. Does noone remember the Ebert Rule?

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

Yes, SaveFarris, I do, but I also remember what a pleasant surprise it was that X-Men came in at an unpadded, unpretentious 104 minutes. As opposed to, say, Superman Returns at 154 minutes.

Dark Knight may use every one of those minutes, but it's a rare movie these days that couldn't have stood to be 10-20 minutes shorter, and some movies, like Pirates of the Caribbean ones, can only be endured by dividing them in half over a couple of days.

comment #22

Mr. Buckles says ...

Ah, The Dark Knight is now the Crime and Punishment of comic book movies. Why not three hours, perhaps split in half like Kill Bill in which case it could be even four hours?

I see all kinds of new, exciting franchise possibilities here related to the sub-sequel. One could release three movies in a summer season for the same movie, say, the 2nd installment, in the ever evolving series.

Tarantino and Rodriguez are pikers!

In fact, why stop there, let's borrow from The French New Wave and Todd Haynes and switch actors playing the leads in and through these sub-sequels. That will show the snotty elites in their ivory cubicles who want a subtext and greater artistic expression beyond the haute action choreography and cinematography.

When I sit down at a summer blockbuster, I don't want to leave until next week. It's more than summer escapism, it's summer vacation! School's out for summer! School's out forever!

comment #23

Mgmax says ...

"I see all kinds of new, exciting franchise possibilities here related to the sub-sequel. One could release three movies in a summer season for the same movie, say, the 2nd installment, in the ever evolving series."

Actually, that would be kind of cool, your point aside.

comment #24

erniesouchak says ...

That's a helluva long sit in an Imax theater. So much for that.

comment #25

moorish says ...

"Dark Knight may use every one of those minutes, but it's a rare movie these days that couldn't have stood to be 10-20 minutes shorter"

PAINFULLY accurate. Spot on.

comment #26

alynch says ...

I don't get it. Am I alone in thinking that 152 minutes doesn't seem long at all? In the 50's & 60's, they would regularly make movie approaching 3 1/2 hours in length. These days you can't even make a film that's 2 1/2 hours without getting some major complaining. And as someone else already pointed out, it's only ten minutes longer than its predecessor.

As for the movie being too dark and leading to Nolan getting taken off the third film, I'll worry about that when it happens. For now though, I have absolutely no qualms with saying, "Fuck the kids!"

comment #27

berkguru says ...

I dont see a difference between Jesus and Batman. Two fairy tales that people turn to in times of trouble for comfort and reassurance.

comment #28

frankbooth says ...

I guess you only have to say "Mgmax" once before he appears, as opposed to Beetlejuice and his three times. I was starting to worried that the hog jowls had taken their toll on everybody's favorite right-wing pygmy -- or that the black-robed, albino liberals swarmed him as he was checkmating his bust of Caesar.

About the movie: This is going to be a complex, epic story with lots of characters. If it's involving, it will fly by. Heat -- which has been mentioned as an influence, and is worshipped around these parts --is also a silly little genre film, but no one complains about its length. That's because it doesn't FEEL long.
Neither did that gangster flick with Brando.

Okay, I'm dorking out and giving this one the benefit of the doubt. I'll be pretty bummed if it's a letdown.

comment #29

George Prager says ...

Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood" predicted this state of affairs.

comment #30

televisiontears says ...

You're not alone, alynch. People complaining about runtimes is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I'm not sure why it's such a task to pay attention to one thing for 2 1/2 hours. Ebert's rule always applies.

It's like when you loan someone a great book, only to find out weeks later that they haven't started it. When you ask why not, they answer "It's really thick". Infuriating

comment #31

/3rtfu11 says ...

I don't understand how a movie like "Synecdoche, New York" which will make very little money in comparison has to get chopped down from 2hr and 4mins including end credits -- but a major studio anchor picture like "Batman" will have a length that will limit the number of times it'll make money over the course of a weekend?

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Rich: "When the filmmaker loses site of the fun fantasy aspects of the franchise, more often than not the studio takes the reins from his hands. Witness Ang Lee and Hulk and Tim Burton and Batman."

You mean Tim Burton and the Planet of the Apes remake.

alynch: "Am I alone in thinking that 152 minutes doesn't seem long at all? In the 50's & 60's, they would regularly make movie approaching 3 1/2 hours in length. These days you can't even make a film that's 2 1/2 hours without getting some major complaining. And as someone else already pointed out, it's only ten minutes longer than its predecessor."

That's because most contemporary directors don't know how to make films longer than two hours work.

comment #33

breadlymoore says ...

"'Batman' will have a length that will limit the number of times it'll make money over the course of a weekend?"

Those days are long over. With the screen counts currently in play, a film like DARK KNIGHT could start every half hour if need be.

comment #34

Aladdin Sane says ...

Rich, okay, so I'm game about the Batman Returns comparison from 1992 - except that this time out the franchise seems to be under better control when it comes to happy meals and families. Anyone who watched Batman Begins knew it wasn't about the kid toys or happy meal toys or kids for that matter. It was a grown up movie. There are still byproducts, since this is a PG-13 film, and not R. We just have to deal with it. That being said, I don't believe there's a fast food tie-in for TDK.

If the word of mouth is good on TDK, the running time won't matter. A lot of people felt burned by Indy IV. I was standing in line for tix to Zohan, and there was a group in front of me looking at the TDK poster, exclaiming how much they wanted to see it. I really think this film is gonna be huge. People are waiting for a summer movie to deliver.

The only thing that will kill TDK is if there is a step backwards from everything setup in BB. And I doubt that's going to happen. They've been doing viral marketing, trailers and talking it up since last summer - that shows a lot of faith in the product. After all that's happened, WB seems to know that they have a winner.

comment #35

Ogami Itto says ...

I dont see a difference between Jesus and Batman. Two fairy tales that people turn to in times of trouble for comfort and reassurance.

The difference is that Batman is WAY cooler -- and his origin story is more realistic.

comment #36

Rich S. says ...

Aladdin, don't kid yourself. Batman is owned by the Warner's conglomerate. His primary reason for existence is to sell merchandise (By the way, don't look too closely at some of these toys. There appears to be spoilers in there.):

http://tinyurl.com/6c397f

For a very enlightening discussion of the subject, read the excellent Superman vs. Hollywood by Jake Rossen and Mark Millar. It deals with Superman, but discusses Batman and deals with a lot of the same issues. And it goes right up to Superman Returns.

I will admit that length of the film is not as important in this particular aspect of the discussion as the content. But, as I said before, length is important, as well. Jackson's King Kong is not a bad movie. It's well acted, well directed and the special effects (at least as they pertain to Kong) are excellent. It's just too damn long.

I hope you're right about Dark Knight. I really do. I remain skeptical, though.

comment #37

Mgmax says ...

Lipitor, Frank. Says right on the bottle you can eat all the hog jowls you want, and never face the consequences. And although my pygmy friends are deeply offended by your casual racism, I am in fact taller than Michael Crichton (and used to pick on him at Harvard Med).

Anyway, as I said before people started comparing The Dark Knight to Heat (hey, Satantango's 7 hours long and it's dark, too, why doesn't Nolan really go to town?), it could be that this one film will be better for every one of its 154 minutes than sex with a supermodel and all-you-can-eat nachos combined. But genre movies with cartoonish characters mainly interested in revenge do not generally make use of 2-1/2 hours for a minute study of family dynamics in the Italian-American milieu; they use it to stage more and more, bigger and more expensive action sequences, usually wearing the audience and its interest in such a "character" as Batman or the Joker out well before credits roll. That's a fact borne out by plenty of movies over the last few years, whether or not Dark the Knight turns out to be one of them.

comment #38

Aladdin Sane says ...

Rich, don't worry, I'm not kidding myself about the merch end of things. Heck, I own a couple of DK things already. I was at a TRU here in Canada, and there was a whole "new" section of role playing and kid toys. It's everywhere. That being said, the kid stuff is pretty kiddish. I'm up for the 1:6 figures though. Hook, line and sinker.

My guess is that in ten years most won't be remembering the toys though. They'll only have memories as to whether or not the film was any good.

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

This is particularly disturbing, however:

http://tinyurl.com/3tuspy

(Child's Joker mask- slashed mouth and all)

comment #40

SaveFarris says ...

That's because most contemporary directors don't know how to make films longer than two hours work.

Christopher Nolan is not "most directors".

comment #41

lipranzer says ...

"As talented as Nolan is, it's too bad he couldn't apply this type of effort to his There Will Be Blood, instead of a guy that dresses up like Dracula and beats up psychotic clowns."

All due respect, but I think that's a bit churlish. Yes, we need people like Paul Thomas Anderson, who, love him or hate him, is trying to stretch the boundaries of cinema. But we also are in desperate need of people who know how to make the basic genre pictures work. Nolan is one of only a handful of directors who make what I would call good mainstream films (or, as SaveFarris put more distinctly, he is not "most directors"). Like Mike D'Angelo in his piece in this month's "Esquire," I look forward eagerly to every film Nolan does. Every director I admire has at least one movie which is either a complete misfire or a near miss, and it's possible THE DARK KNIGHT may be Nolan's. But I doubt it.

And add me to the list of those who think the length doesn't matter. Many of the shitty movies made in the last decade or so have been 90 minutes or less. What does that tell you?

Oh, and alynch: Right on.

comment #42

lipranzer says ...

Should I have said "distinctly" or "succintly"?

comment #43

Mgmax says ...

"Every director I admire has at least one movie which is either a complete misfire or a near miss, and it's possible THE DARK KNIGHT may be Nolan's. But I doubt it."

Because The Prestige already was.

comment #44

EOTW says ...

MGMax: Agreed. You are spot on about how too many films need to have 10-20 minutes cut out of them, but I would say that a film like TWBB earned and deserves its length and uses every second of it. So did HEAT way back in 95 (to name a flick that would take most directors maybe 90 minutes top to do). I think the DK will be one that justifies its length. I'm taking off work that day to see it.

comment #45

swordandpen says ...

"The history of cinema in two lines:

1950s: long, self-important movies about Jesus
2000s: long, self-important movies about Batman"

2004: self-important movie about Jesus that lasted only 2 hours, but felt like 5. I'll take a longer movie about Batman.

Why does nobody complain about the length of Michael Bay's movies? Bay can't make a movie under 140 minutes and has yet to to tell a story that needed to last longer than 90 minutes.

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

Farris: "Christopher Nolan is not "most directors"."

I'm sure that's what people said about Jackson before Kong...

EOTW: TWBB?

comment #47

Richardson says ...

"I'm sure that's what people said about Jackson before Kong..."

Do you even remember the point that you were trying to make which that was a response to? because you've just blatantly contradicted that point on your own with no help from anybody, you fucking idiot.

comment #48

Richardson says ...

MGMax - I know I'm the minority on this one, but 'The Prestige' is the only Nolan movie I enjoy beginning to end.

comment #49

Josh Massey says ...

So is this Jeff's first link from Fark? They even co-opted your line, Mgmax.

comment #50

redmond says ...

Big Jeff getting the shout out on IGN:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/881/881617p1.html

Also, 2.5 hours of The Dark Knight? Oh hell yes.

comment #51

Richardson says ...

"They even co-opted your line, Mgmax."

Dammit. I was hoping "Why so tedious?" would catch on.

comment #52

Rich S. says ...

"Churlish" I quite like that.

But the fact remains, Batman IS about a guy who dresses up like Dracula and beats up psychotic clowns, and human crocodiles, and men that dress like flightless aquatic birds, etc. What CAN such a story tell us about ourselves or the greater world at large? That was my point about There Will Be Blood. Such a story as that might need a broad canvas. But a revenge fantasy based on Zorro and Dick Tracy? Maybe not so much.

Regardless, I've already beat this horse to a bloody, shapeless pulp. The heart wants what it wants, and people clearly want a Batman miniseries.

But "churlish?" That I quite like.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "Do you even remember the point that you were trying to make which that was a response to? because you've just blatantly contradicted that point on your own with no help from anybody, you fucking idiot."

Not really, since Jackson is neither most directors, nor has he successfully shot any film longer than two hours which did not need to be longer than two hours.

comment #54

Aladdin Sane says ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zKQYpjpiE

New trailer. Seems more subdued - I think cos of the musical cues chosen. Not as bombastic. That being said, still looks great. I'm trying to unhype myself for it, but it's hard not to be hyped. I've been looking forward to it since the moment Batman Begins ended. And if they keep releasing trailers, we may just see all 2.5 hrs by July 18th. ;-)

comment #55

aceofknaves says ...

What is it with you people that can't handle a long movie that isn't perfectly paced? Am I the only person in this ridiculous fast, chopcut, mtv-attention-span society that is capable of enjoying a long, slow paced movie? (Which Dark Knight won't be anyway). I can't believe all the bitching about length. I guess a bunch of you have pressing appointments scheduled for right after your showtime ends.

The story is the length is is because that's the length of time Nolan need to tell this story. And remember, this 154 mins is probably already cut down ALOT.

comment #56

The Winchester says ...

"'Batman' will have a length that will limit the number of times it'll make money over the course of a weekend?"

allegedly on opening day, AMC in Burbank is running it 24 hours straight, and nothing else. This could just be a rumor, but I think they did that with Indy, too.

comment #57

The Winchester says ...

Besides, it's not the length that matters. What matters is how it's used.

comment #58

Wayne, Thomas says ...

D.Z;
King kong had a Gross revenue $550,517,357 and gained over $100 million in DVD sales, it won academy awards for visual effects, sound mixing, and sound editing. It also received positive reviews from critics and the general public. It has a run time of 3 hours and 8 minutes. I'm a little curious what your criteria for a succesful film over 2 hours is.

Rich.S;
Harvey Dent becoming two face isn't as simple as his face being horribly disfigured, although this part "shouldn't take long" the fall from grace origin that TDK will provide for Dent will need the time for us to care about the character for it to carry any weight. As a constant reader of Batman graphic novels this excites me nearly as much as seeing THE portrayal of Batman (mr Bale) and what looks like THE portrayal of the Joker (mr Ledger), in my opinion anyway.
I am actually quite offended about your comment regarding 'great literature', I think i grasped your argument being that comic book based films do not fall into this category. I personally would disagree with this believing that such beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, but would also like to draw attention the other posters arguing that they do not want "pointless character analysis and a reflection on contemporary society". Can't we have our cake and eat it?! (p.s sorry if I read your post wrong and got the wrong end of the stick!).

I don't think we give the general public much credit, so many people I know loved batman begins, regardless of running time. In short people like good quality, which I'm sure TDK will provide...and then some!

comment #59

reedm60 says ...

Rich S.

Paul Thomas Anderson directed, produced, and wrote the screenplay for 'There will be blood', not Christopher Nolan.

comment #60

Richardson says ...

Thomas Wayne - ignoring 'King Kong' he made a trilogy of films which were all over three hours which were not only widely embraced worldwide, but were released in longer cuts which were generally placed in even higher regard. They connected with audiences in all languages of all ages. I don't think anybody can make a legitimate argument that Jackson can't keep an audience's attention over three hours, even if an individual didn't enjoy the movies..

And, on top of that, DZ has now changed his point from "the directors used to be able to make movies longer because the directors were better" to "directors don't tell stories that need to be more than 2 hours anymore". He can't even maintain a consistent point, because he is not trying to mount an argument. He's like John Cleese in the Argument sketch. Just mindless contradiction.

comment #61

D.Z. says ...

Wayne: King Kong also cost at least half that gross, if you include P+A.

Richardson: "I don't think anybody can make a legitimate argument that Jackson can't keep an audience's attention over three hours, even if an individual didn't enjoy the movies.."

Sure you can, since the source material for LOTR requires those films to be 3+ hours. And I think most people were already bored by Jackson after his multiple ending gimmick for ROTK.

"And, on top of that, DZ has now changed his point from "the directors used to be able to make movies longer because the directors were better" to "directors don't tell stories that need to be more than 2 hours anymore". He can't even maintain a consistent point,"

That's not really inconsistent, since the reason they can't tell stories which are longer than two hours is they're so awful at making them work at two hours or less.

comment #62

Rich S. says ...

Reed: Yes, I know. My point was that if Nolan is going to take 2 1/2 hours to tell a story, he should be telling HIS magnum opus like TWBB. Read my post again.

Wayne: Listen. I'm on your side. I like comic book movies. But Batman, in my opinion, is not, and never will be, great literature, no matter how good the movies or graphic novels are. Batman is serialized melodrama. I suppose you could create a self-contained story arc for Batman in which you could explore real drama as the character undergoes real change. But then, surprise!, he wouldn't be Batman.

All of the critical posters seem to think I think there's something wrong with Batman. There isn't. He's great entertainment (just like Spider-Man, Iron Man and Chris Reeve's Superman). But, again in my opinion, stories like these are best told economically. You don't really need to "let the story unfold" because we already know the beats. And the characters themselves are very, very limited. Just tell the story and thrill us.

Sorry, I promised not to beat this horse any more. But Christopher Nolan has brewed some surprisingly strong kool aid. Just chalk it up to my being churlish.

comment #63

Richardson says ...

"King Kong also cost at least half that gross, if you include P+A."

So it made twice what the entire total cost was including P&A, thus making it a hit.

"That's not really inconsistent, since the reason they can't tell stories which are longer than two hours is they're so awful at making them work at two hours or less."

hmmm ... now let's here from somebody who's not a fucking idiot.

Anybody care to explain to DZ how "directors don't tell stories that need to be more than 2 hours anymore, that's why movies are "too long"" and "the directors used to be able to make movies longer because the directors were better, that's why movies are "too long"" are inconsistent? I don't have the energy.

comment #64

One_post says ...

This movie is two minutes shorter than Superman Returns, two minutes longer than Dead Man's Chest, and 16 minutes shorter than At World's End.

comment #65

frankbooth says ...

Rich S. -- when I was a kid, I had a Ted Bundy mask, and look how I turned out.

comment #66

aceofknaves says ...

Rick S. said "But, again in my opinion, stories like these are best told economically. You don't really need to "let the story unfold" because we already know the beats. And the characters themselves are very, very limited. Just tell the story and thrill us."

Letting the story unfold, my friend, is what the fans want from a Batman flick. That's precisely why "Begins" was so popular. Just telling the story simply and economically for a popcorn thrill is how we ended up with "Batman & Robin". Believe it or not, the fans want to see Batman taken seriously, dramatically, and with a sense of griity realism.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make it into something more than a cheap melodrama. Yeah, comics aren't the greatest literature out there, but Nolan and company saw potential in the Batman stories to make into something beyond a campy, popcorn, comic movie.

You seem to prefer that. Which is fine. Like you said, it's just your opinion. But I'm letting you know that the vast majority of the primary Batman fanbase disagrees, and Nolan has created what they're looking for. So it's the length it is, and it's portrayed the way it is, because that's how the fans want to see it.

There won't be any danger of WB taking it away from Nolan for the 3'rd installment like was done with Burton. This is because everyone already knows the direction this revamp has taken and what to expect from it. It was redesigned to be an adult franchise. Regardless what McDonalds has to say, this is the new Batman.

Just as was the case with "Begins", to tell the storyline for "Dark Knight" in a shorter format would seem contrived and rushed. There's too much going on in this film to fit into 90 minutes.

So I'm sorry if you don't have the attention span to sit still that long, but I doubt it could work as a shorter movie. I'm a smoker, it's a long sit for me too. But it'll be so damn worth it to get the story right.

Ciao

comment #67

aceofknaves says ...

Rick S. said "But, again in my opinion, stories like these are best told economically. You don't really need to "let the story unfold" because we already know the beats. And the characters themselves are very, very limited. Just tell the story and thrill us."

Letting the story unfold, my friend, is what the fans want from a Batman flick. That's precisely why "Begins" was so popular. Just telling the story simply and economically for a popcorn thrill is how we ended up with "Batman & Robin". Believe it or not, the fans want to see Batman taken seriously, dramatically, and with a sense of griity realism.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make it into something more than a cheap melodrama. Yeah, comics aren't the greatest literature out there, but Nolan and company saw potential in the Batman stories to make into something beyond a campy, popcorn, comic movie.

You seem to prefer that. Which is fine. Like you said, it's just your opinion. But I'm letting you know that the vast majority of the primary Batman fanbase disagrees, and Nolan has created what they're looking for. So it's the length it is, and it's portrayed the way it is, because that's how the fans want to see it.

There won't be any danger of WB taking it away from Nolan for the 3'rd installment like was done with Burton. This is because everyone already knows the direction this revamp has taken and what to expect from it. It was redesigned to be an adult franchise. Regardless what McDonalds has to say, this is the new Batman.

Just as was the case with "Begins", to tell the storyline for "Dark Knight" in a shorter format would seem contrived and rushed. There's too much going on in this film to fit into 90 minutes.

So I'm sorry if you don't have the attention span to sit still that long, but I doubt it could work as a shorter movie. I'm a smoker, it's a long sit for me too. But it'll be so damn worth it to get the story right.

Ciao

comment #68

aceofknaves says ...

Rick S. said "But, again in my opinion, stories like these are best told economically. You don't really need to "let the story unfold" because we already know the beats. And the characters themselves are very, very limited. Just tell the story and thrill us."

Letting the story unfold, my friend, is what the fans want from a Batman flick. That's precisely why "Begins" was so popular. Just telling the story simply and economically for a popcorn thrill is how we ended up with "Batman & Robin". Believe it or not, the fans want to see Batman taken seriously, dramatically, and with a sense of griity realism.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make it into something more than a cheap melodrama. Yeah, comics aren't the greatest literature out there, but Nolan and company saw potential in the Batman stories to make into something beyond a campy, popcorn, comic movie.

You seem to prefer that. Which is fine. Like you said, it's just your opinion. But I'm letting you know that the vast majority of the primary Batman fanbase disagrees, and Nolan has created what they're looking for. So it's the length it is, and it's portrayed the way it is, because that's how the fans want to see it.

There won't be any danger of WB taking it away from Nolan for the 3'rd installment like was done with Burton. This is because everyone already knows the direction this revamp has taken and what to expect from it. It was redesigned to be an adult franchise. Regardless what McDonalds has to say, this is the new Batman.

Just as was the case with "Begins", to tell the storyline for "Dark Knight" in a shorter format would seem contrived and rushed. There's too much going on in this film to fit into 90 minutes.

So I'm sorry if you don't have the attention span to sit still that long, but I doubt it could work as a shorter movie. I'm a smoker, it's a long sit for me too. But it'll be so damn worth it to get the story right.

Ciao

comment #69

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "So it made twice what the entire total cost was including P&A, thus making it a hit."

No, it bombed, because it had to make twice that gross to be in the red, and it couldn't go further than that.

"Anybody care to explain to DZ how "directors don't tell stories that need to be more than 2 hours anymore, that's why movies are "too long"" and "the directors used to be able to make movies longer because the directors were better, that's why movies are "too long"" are inconsistent?"

Movies are too long, because most modern directors, even when given time limits to work within, are awful at pacing. The ones who can make them longer than two hours are few and far in-between.

comment #70

Wayne, Thomas says ...

DZ;
Sorry to harp on, I don't want to keep badgering you but I was curious as to your crieria for a succesful film. Your posts came across as saying king kong was not a successful film, you neglected to mention the three oscar wins, the positive reviews from critics and the general public. Also it had a budget of $207 mil, grossed $550,517,357, equalling $343517357. Then it made over $100 mil in dvd sales. Financially that seems like a great big succes, I haven't had time to check out reviews/money made for the tie in video game and soundtrack. Anyone got any info on those?

Rich.S;
I think you may have misunderstood my point, I realised you were a comic book to flim fan. That was never a concern of mine. I just wanted to point out that the character of Harvey Dent isn't as simple as your 'usual' perception of a comic book villian. It is reported that he is the backbone of TDK. I was more upset about you stating that comic to films are not great literature. Literature means only the writing, not the content. I may have misinterpreted what you were saying but I took that as you saying that comic books, graphic novels etc are not 'great literature'. I find that a shame because you may be comparing them to novels, which is a different type of literature. It's like comparing novels to leaflets, again two different types of literature. Going off topic slightly have you read the graphic novels; from hell or the watchmen? Very indepth complex forms of literature. My sister is an English literature teacher and she loved Batman year one, I wouldn't even consider that the most complex batman GN, but she was able to dissect it and enjoy the story. I think a lot of the time (not saying this is you Rich S) people act like snobs to graphic novels, just beacuse it has 'pictures' in it. Yet they don't realise the content, the same mistakes are made for films based on comics/graphic novels. People want an easy going film, low on content and high on explosions. Yet they argue that a film cannot last past 2 hours because it doesn't have the material for it. I disagree, and believe that the comic to film genre is going to become more serious, with character and content driven plots. That's what I have always wanted from my films, regardless of genre or inspirations.

comment #71

Wayne, Thomas says ...

P.S Rich S;

Forgot to mention that my stating beauty lies in the eye of the beholder refers again back to you stating 'they are not great literature'. Literature is the writing not the content. I was only saying that great literature is a personal thing based on taste and influence etc. I would like to know out of curiousity what you consider 'great literature'. I actually would like to know, please don't think I am 'calling you out' or anything. :D

comment #72

Rich S. says ...

I'm glad to hear you say all that, Wayne. As background, I collected the individual issues of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One when they were released. So that tells you how far back I go. I was out of comics by the time From Hell was released. I've picked it up in the store a couple of times, but never read it all the way through. I also collected Alan Moore's original run of Swamp Thing and Marvel(Miracle)Man.

I did not mean to imply that illustrated fiction cannot be considered "literature." I think that Watchmen and V for Vendetta are both literature. My point is about the essence of drama, which I think by necessity must have a beginning, a middle and an end. And through that, it must have a dramatic arc in which the characters change and mature. It is through this transformation that we learn more about ourselves and the world around us.

Now, again not trying to raise any hackles, but I don't think that comics heroes like Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, etc. can truly qualify for this because they don't essentially change. They have the beginning (origin story) followed by a perpetual middle. The origin story changes Bruce Wayne from a spoiled rich kid into Batman, or Peter Parker from a dweeby high school student into Spider-Man, but then they essentially freeze. They have to, in order to continue to be serialized. They are the direct descendants of Tarzan, Conan and, yes, even Robin Hood.

As for great literature, the term constantly evolves for me. I am partial to Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet, Henry V and Julius Caesar. I also enjoy the works of Twain, Poe, Vonnegut, Hemingway and Steinbeck. That's just off the top of my head.

If you want to know, however, what I consider to be the template for the type of movie I think a comic movie should aspire to, check out The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn. Strong characterizations, excellent acting, a coherent story and a nice brisk pace. It is neither simple nor simplistic. And it accomplishes everything it sets out to do in 102 minutes. Epic need not be long.

Nice talking to you.

comment #73

Wayne, Thomas says ...

Rich S;

Cool I like your choices. However watchmen and V for vendetta ARE literature. No ifs or buts about it. :D Do you see my point about the use of the term 'literature'? Now I see where you are coming from in your perspective of content that is your preferred type of literature. I will agree that superhero based films follow the same pattern, but I seriously doubt that the company owners would allow for example Batman or Spiderman to be killed off for the sake of drama or tragedy. I do believe though that TDK will have Batman maturing, in the new trailer he confides in Rachael that a time for Gotham without Batman is near, now we all know that it's really not going to happen. Not only that but a close ally is going to be turned to the 'dark side', possibly forever. Not only that but it seems that the Joker and the crime bosses are going to make life hell for Batman and the Gotham residents. The love triangle between Bruce, Rachael and Harvey and the tension and toll that will be placed between Batman and the 'only good' cop Jim Gordon. This seems like a lot of drama, that will change Bruce Wayne's perspective on things, and change a lot of people along the way (including himself).
I cannot wait!
Plus the fall out from it all in the next film of the trilogy!!