View Single Post
Old 01-23-2013, 12:47 PM   #653
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,810
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyCage View Post
I think there's something to be said for suspense and cliffhangers. Once upon a time, we had these things called 'serials'... It could have been brilliant as two, but I agree that an extra like 20 minutes probably would have sufficed very nicely.

As long as we can squeeze in some more fleshing out of Bane's character and ideology, have a rooftop chase with Batman and Catwoman (in the snow), and give Scarecrow some time to help tear up Gotham a bit, I'm all smiles.

And we could also round out Foley better too, I guess. haha
I see what you're saying. From a fanboy perspective, sure I'll always take more Batman. I just don't think a cliffhanger would have worked as well for this film. Like, say you ended after Bruce gets put in the prison. It's not like this is Shawshank or a prison break movie and we're gonna be wondering "how's he gonna get out?". We know the method of escape and we're rooting for Bruce to find the strength to do it. I think cliffhangers work better when you're genuinely unsure how the hero will get out of the predicament they're in. I think it just would've led to an unfulfilling part 1 while setting up a pretty obvious part 2. Sure, if you put them together you could still have a great film, but it would have disrupted the emotional journey too much for my tastes. A serialized approach obviously works for Batman because he's a comic book character after all. But that's the thing, Nolan wasn't making a comic book, he was making a movie. And I think that "full journey" effect of a film is what elevates the experience of being told a Batman story in that medium.

My thing is, for as much as we all wanted to see more of various side characters, I think Bruce's arc in this film was given just the right amount of attention and that's ultimately what kept me invested. I think splitting into two movies would have served to flesh out Gotham more, but at the expense of the weight of Bruce's arc. I wanted to see the "fall and rise" in one film, not one film for the fall and another film for the rise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
A two-parter TDKR or just a one longer film would've only made me more excited of the final product, but I think if IMAX wasn't an issue, we would have only gotten a longer The Dark Knight Rises as
Yeah, that's essentially what I mean. I agree with Nolan's decision to complete the story by making it a trilogy, 3 parts with their own themes/feel/look etc. Maybe I'm just OCD about it, but I feel like having two films so closely connected would've thrown off the balance of the series.

And I agree that if it wasn't for the constraints of IMAX, it would've probably been a 3 hour flick.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158

Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 01-23-2013 at 12:53 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline