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

[FCEEVIPER]

Some of my favorite movies are over 165mins for example:

The Godfather 175mins
The Godfather pt. II 200mins
Schindler's List 195mins
Saving Private Ryan 170mins
Lotr 178, 179, 201 (could have cut some of the epilogue)
Gangs of New York 167mins
Casino 178mins
Heat 171mins
Once Upon a Time in America 229mins
Munich 164mins (close enough)

These are all great movies, so I have no problems with long run times, as long as the movie is good, and TDK is looking pretty darn good.

Great tastes there.


I have no problem with a long run time, especially if it's Nolan's Batman.

But this will hurt the box office a bit. :\

 

[Phallic]

Great tastes there.


I have no problem with a long run time, especially if it's Nolan's Batman.

But this will hurt the box office a bit. :\

I don't think TDK has anything to worry about in terms of the box office.

 

[Solidus]

Great tastes there.


I have no problem with a long run time, especially if it's Nolan's Batman.

But this will hurt the box office a bit. :\

Yea thats why two of the top Box Office movies are over 3 hours and fifteen minutes long.........

 

[FCEEVIPER]

I don't think TDK has anything to worry about in terms of the box office.

Yea thats why two of the top Box Office movies are over 3 hours and fifteen minutes long.........

It's just in the long run the 3hr movies always seem to make less in the BO...

The 2hr and change movies receive more second and third viewings by the GA.

 

[StylishHokie21]

3 hours? If that's true....I say hell yes! Run time really shouldn't have an effect on box office? Titanic anyone?

 

[The Mighty Wind]

3 hours? If that's true....I say hell yes! Run time really shouldn't have an effect on box office? Titanic anyone?

Run time can actually have a major effect on box office and not necessarily because audiences stay away from long movies (I don't know what the info on that is, though I do imagine there is some tendency). The reason why long movies don't do as well is because you can't play them as well. A movie like Iron Man can play once every 2 and a half hours due to its running time, while The Dark Knight, if 2 hours 45 minutes long, can do that probably every 3 hours and a half. So lets say there are 4-5 showings of Iron Man each day per screen, while only 3 for The Dark Knight. Ticket prices cost the same no matter how long the movie, short movies can be played more each day, and as a result can earn more money, or, at the very least, earn their money faster (which cuts on costs).

 

[JokerLedger]

If that's the case......... then more theatre space for TDK heehee!!!

 

[cjblair]

I am always surprised as to how the most mundane thing can become a major thread. The running time is not a quarter as interesting as the movie itself. If it sucks noodles, God help us if it does after all the hypet:, then the running time will be the least of our problems.

 

[Juha]

I am always surprised as to how the most mundane thing can become a major thread. The running time is not a quarter as interesting as the movie itself. If it sucks noodles, God help us if it does after all the hypet:, then the running time will be the least of our problems.

There are no "mundane things" when it comes to Batman. In case you haven't noticed, this place is filled with hardcore fans. Every minute is important for these people.

 

[cjblair]

There are no "mundane things" when it comes to Batman. In case you haven't noticed, this place is filled with hardcore fans. Every minute is important for these people.

Its quality not quantity, just look at Batman and Robin. 125 minutes of pure ****e.

 

[jmc]

Run time can actually have a major effect on box office and not necessarily because audiences stay away from long movies (I don't know what the info on that is, though I do imagine there is some tendency). The reason why long movies don't do as well is because you can't play them as well. A movie like Iron Man can play once every 2 and a half hours due to its running time, while The Dark Knight, if 2 hours 45 minutes long, can do that probably every 3 hours and a half. So lets say there are 4-5 showings of Iron Man each day per screen, while only 3 for The Dark Knight. Ticket prices cost the same no matter how long the movie, short movies can be played more each day, and as a result can earn more money, or, at the very least, earn their money faster (which cuts on costs).

So true, I was told from someone in film that a film over 2 and a half hours will equal one fewer session per day, doesn't sound like much but when you multiply it by hundreds of cinemas, it's a lot of cash.

 

[DiMiT]

this thread took me 2h22m to read

^winna^

 

[Solidus]

It's just in the long run the 3hr movies always seem to make less in the BO...

The 2hr and change movies receive more second and third viewings by the GA.

Well yea because most long movies that are around 3 hours long are not blockbusters but more of dramatic, artistic films, that are less "exciting" to the mass public. But this is Batman, a blockbuster. Most blockbusters that are longer then 2 and ahalf hours still do very well. Like all the LOTR, Titanic ect, those all made MASSIVE money, because they were entertaining as well as dramatic. Just like TDK. TDK is not a love fest, or a historical movie, its an action/drama so I don't think it will hurt it at all BO wise.

 

[cjblair]

Like all the LOTR, Titanic ect,

"And my heart will go on and on..."t:

 

[Why So Cereal?]

And now it's time for the big question: can it hold everyone's interest through the narrative, storyline, and characters throughout the entire run time?

 

[cjblair]

And now it's time for the big question: can it hold everyone's interest through the narrative, storyline, and characters throughout the entire run time?

With the Nolans in charge, yes I think we can feel completely safe.

 

[MillsOfGod]

It's just in the long run the 3hr movies always seem to make less in the BO...

Every movie in the top 10 worldwide is over 2 hours long. Most of them exceed the 2 hr 30 minute mark.

Titanic, the highest-grossing film ever, is 194 minutes long.

So, no, I don't see how this can hurt the BO in the long run.

 

[Why So Cereal?]

With the Nolans in charge, yes I think we can feel completely safe.

I wouldn't say 'completely' safe.



See also: Insomnia

 

[YsoSerious]

3 hours sounds good to me! BRING IT ON !!!

 

[Mr. Socko]

I don't fully believe it just yet, but if it's true, 165 minutes would be great. That would make me even more excited to see this

 

[fabman]

Every movie in the top 10 worldwide is over 2 hours long. Most of them exceed the 2 hr 30 minute mark.

Titanic, the highest-grossing film ever, is 194 minutes long.

So, no, I don't see how this can hurt the BO in the long run.

The Dark Knight is not Titanic. It doesn't have anything to do with quality, but there's much more people who'd go and watch a movie about the Titanic, and not one about Batman.

 

[El Payaso]

Every movie in the top 10 worldwide is over 2 hours long. Most of them exceed the 2 hr 30 minute mark.

Titanic, the highest-grossing film ever, is 194 minutes long.

So, no, I don't see how this can hurt the BO in the long run.

This thing doesn't operate both ways.

Gold is shiny but not everything that shines is gold.

 

[terry78]

Most cineplexes, when a big event movie is released, have about four theatres dedicated to showing it, so it can all depend on that as well.

 

[Magenta666]

It also depends on the popularity of the movie, Lord of the Rings was long but did great because it was good....and had a lot of special effects

 

[fabman]

But most people are more open to see a fantasy epic based on a book by J.R. Tolkien, than they are on seeing a Batman film. You don't know how many snobs are out there. There's still lots of people who think this is nothing more than a silly comic book movie.