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

TDK close to 3 hours?
My prayers = Answered.
 
This rumor is interesting, particularly when compared to the Hulk where Norton and Leterrier are fighting to get the film to be at 2 hour and 15 min. Marvel Studios on the other hand wants a more commercial movie that can run under 2 hours. As much grief as I may give WB sometimes over their superhero properties, I give them credit for not interfering with the directors on their films in this genre. I am very thankful for that.
 
They should have stepped in on SR in my opinion, could have been a great film had they forced Singer to be more creative by lowering the budget, and if they had have demanded that Lex's advanced alien technology lead to a fight with some kind of super-robot.
 
I seriously doubt the film will be 165 minutes long let alone 180 minutes. The running time of 152 sounds more plausible.

As far as character development, I have no worries. I'm pretty sure Nolan can handle it. Since Batman is established, we can just run right into intros of Joker and Harvey and I think 152 minutes can do that just fine.
 
Anytime over 140 for batman movie makes me happy.
160- Orgasmic
180- can die after watching the movie and have no regrets
 
Anytime over 140 for batman movie makes me happy.
160- Orgasmic
180- can die after watching the movie and have no regrets
You will have one more regret, not being able to see the third movie. If there is no 3rd movie, then you can die.
 
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.
Well, I prefer to watch a movie and never want it to end than starting to look at my watch every 5 minutes because it's too long...
 
Anything over 150 mins is highly unlikely, otherwise you start loosing cinema sessions.
 
This just lends even more credence to my "The Godfather of Comic book movies" theory.

RAD!
 
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.
Well, the original, you didn't really get to see Anakin's rise and fall - they hinted at it and then decided to built on it with the prequels.

TDK has to show it all, pretty much.

They should have stepped in on SR in my opinion, could have been a great film had they forced Singer to be more creative by lowering the budget, and if they had have demanded that Lex's advanced alien technology lead to a fight with some kind of super-robot.
The film would have been fine at the length they edited it to, but IMO they chose to keep the wrong scenes. The pacing was terrible at places.
 
Well, the original, you didn't really get to see Anakin's rise and fall - they hinted at it and then decided to built on it with the prequels.

TDK has to show it all, pretty much.
Well, what I'm trying to say is that each individual film develops the two characters incredibly well ("A New Hope" and "Empire Strikes Back"). In the original film, George Lucas had to establish an incredible amount of character; Luke, Ben, Vader, Tarkin, Han, Leia -- two-hours is more than enough time to develop two characters.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,447
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"