The Dark Knight Nolan: "Running time comparable to the first film's 140 minutes"

[Solidus]

Great minds think alike
Downloaded the JP beta today and everything is set for Monday!
TDK and MGS4 FTW!

Just replayed through the Solid Trilogy last week. At the end of MGS3 the final words on the screen just fills me with glee and excitement:

1972-The "Les Enfants Terribles" Project begins.
The Sons of Big Boss are born.

MGS series still my favorite games of all time. And I've gamed for 21 years, I still remember the original Metal Gear on NES.

That and TDK will make for a great summer indeed.

 

[turtlefocker]

soooo... how long till confirmation?

 

[Dark Sentinel]

3 hours? woohoo!!

 

[fabman]

165 mins... sounds good!

 

[fabman]

...anyway, 165 isn't 3 hours... it's almost 3 hours... it's 2h 45mins

 

[hegele]

165 hours isn't unbearable. There Will be Blood had that exact runtime.

 

[Keyser Soze]

My God, if "The Dark Knight" clocked in at 165 minutes - close to 3 hours - I'd just be overjoyed! Some people are against films that go north of 2 hours, saying they drag. But they don't have to. "Magnolia" clocks in at over 3 hours, but it flies by. With a capable enough director, pacing shouldn't be a problem. And Nolan is one of the best out there. When handled right, a film with a running time like this feels truly epic in scope.

 

[ActuallyRobin]

165 hours isn't unbearable. There Will be Blood had that exact runtime.

i think you mean minutes :]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was around the same too.

 

[Juha]

165 minutes?? You gotta be kiddin me. Even if that was true, am I really the only one who thinks that the movie should not be over 140 minutes? If the movie is longer than that, then there's a huge risk that the flick isn't that dense from star to finish and begins to drag at some point.

I mean TDK is obviously the event of the decade and like all of us, I want to experience the ultimate Batman movie. But at the same time I want this movie to be relentless, compact and very dynamic. I think those things are hard to achieve if the running time is more than 140-150 minutes.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

165 minutes?? You gotta be kiddin me. Even if that was true, am I really the only one who thinks that the movie should not be over 140 minutes? If the movie is longer than that, then there's a huge risk that the flick isn't that dense from star to finish and begins to drag at some point.

I mean TDK is obviously the event of the decade and like all of us, I want to experience the ultimate Batman movie. But at the same time I want this movie to be relentless, compact and very dynamic. I think those things are hard to achieve if the running time is more than 140-150 minutes.

Well, considering how I never wanted Batman Begins to end while watching it in the cinema, I'm pretty sure that I'd be able to cope with a 165 minute run-time.

 

[FhFgJg]

heck yeah,165 hours.....ill just take cat naps during the rachel dawes scenes and survive on wheat thins till the movie ends

 

[The Mighty Wind]

Too awesome. Nolan is a master at pacing and keeping action going so I have no doubt that a 165 minute cut means a story that works with and requires 165 minutes.

This is going to be incredible.

 

[Juha]

Well, considering how I never wanted Batman Begins to end while watching it in the cinema, I'm pretty sure that I'd be able to cope with a 165 minute run-time.

Yeah I know that when the subject matter and the director are this awesome, everything becomes possible. And I'm sure that Nolan and the crew won't drop the ball. I just think there's a risk that the movie will lose some of its edge if its longer than two and a half hours.

 

[Obsidian]

That might mean the IMAX version of TDK might cut out a few minutes. I remember IMAX has a limited runtime (maximum of 2 hours 35 minutes). That's why WB was frantic about Superman Returns' IMAX release. They had to speed up the end credits I believe.

 

[Anita18]

I think it's going to be a fairly straight-forward task for Nolan to "squeeze everything in".

See what I mean? Nolan should have no problem in handling Maroni, Joker and Dent.

My main concern was with Dent - he's the "backbone" of the movie and he needs to have an entire character arc: introduction, conflict, and fall....AND it's also supposed to be a Batman film with Joker in it.

If the movie is going to be on the long side, that definitely alleviates some of my concern.

 

[Keyser Soze]

165 minutes?? You gotta be kiddin me. Even if that was true, am I really the only one who thinks that the movie should not be over 140 minutes? If the movie is longer than that, then there's a huge risk that the flick isn't that dense from star to finish and begins to drag at some point.

I mean TDK is obviously the event of the decade and like all of us, I want to experience the ultimate Batman movie. But at the same time I want this movie to be relentless, compact and very dynamic. I think those things are hard to achieve if the running time is more than 140-150 minutes.

A movie can be 3 hours, 2 hours, 1 hour, 10 minutes, and drag if the pacing's not right. It's all in the structure and pacing. If that's right, 165 minutes will fly by.

 

[Anita18]

That might mean the IMAX version of TDK might cut out a few minutes. I remember IMAX has a limited runtime (maximum of 2 hours 35 minutes). That's why WB was frantic about Superman Returns' IMAX release. They had to speed up the end credits I believe.

That's a really good point, actually. Hadn't thought about that.

I actually read somewhere that some older IMAX projectors couldn't play BB because of its length, so they had to get special permission to show it without the credits.

I hope Nolan will take that into account, since he did film some of the scenes with IMAX cameras, solely for the purpose of showing them in their full glory.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Yeah I know that when the subject matter and the director are this awesome, everything becomes possible. And I'm sure that Nolan and the crew won't drop the ball. I just think there's a risk that the movie will lose some of its edge if its longer than two and a half hours.

I agree; less is sometimes more. I loved Batman Begins because I left the cinema wanting more.

But in all honesty, I don't care how long the movie is, as long as it's over two-hours long...

 

[Secret_Riddle]

165 is amazing, as long as their is no draggage.

 

[CaptainClown]

I agree; less is sometimes more. I loved Batman Begins because I left the cinema wanting more.

But in all honesty, I don't care how long the movie is, as long as it's over two-hours long...

I'm with you.

 

[wikum]

My main concern was with Dent - he's the "backbone" of the movie and he needs to have an entire character arc: introduction, conflict, and fall....AND it's also supposed to be a Batman film with Joker in it.

If the movie is going to be on the long side, that definitely alleviates some of my concern.

exactly. the film needs to be over the course of a year in the life of gotham or something like that. i don't want to see dent turn into two face in the space of a week or something. the fact that this film is long will help this matter.

i still think they made a mistake not having dent in batman begins.

 

[Batman>all]

25 extra minutes if the movie is great will be a non issue imo.

 

[Juha]

I loved Batman Begins because I left the cinema wanting more.

You left the cinema wanting more because of the ending scene

But yeah, Batman Begins was just amazing and I had such a blast with that movie. Loved every minute of it.

 

[CaptainClown]

exactly. the film needs to be over the course of a year in the life of gotham or something like that. i don't want to see dent turn into two face in the space of a week or something. the fact that this film is long will help this matter.

i still think they made a mistake not having dent in batman begins.

Well Nolan likes to skip around in time, he easily went through years in n BB

 

[Mr. Superhero]

My main concern was with Dent - he's the "backbone" of the movie and he needs to have an entire character arc: introduction, conflict, and fall....AND it's also supposed to be a Batman film with Joker in it.

If the movie is going to be on the long side, that definitely alleviates some of my concern.

It's not that difficult to do. It's like the Star Wars films. The original trilogy is kind of based on Luke Skywalker, but Darth Vader is the actual backbone of the films, or visa-versa. Either way, both characters were portrayed fantastically well in each film.

I don't see why Nolan wouldn't be able to do the same with Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent, considering how Wayne has already been established in Begins.