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

[escobar2248]

The last few pages where we've been talking about TDK being 165 minutes long.

It'll be 457 minutes in length by next week....

In all honesty, why is everyone suprised by the close to three hour run time?? From what we know already, this is going to be a very busy film with many layers, alot of characters and a complex story line. I feel more comfortable now that it's going to be close to three hours. Things won't be rushed.

 

[Nightmare]

im happy with 120 or 160 minutes long. Whatevers left out will be on the dvd.

 

[RoboAmish]

Because even though that's what he was originally aiming for, he might be having more trouble than he bargained for with cutting it down to roughly the same runtime as Begins

But yeah, it is all speculation at the minute. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now

 

[redfirebird2008]

im happy with 120 or 160 minutes long. Whatevers left out will be on the dvd.

Nolan doesn't believe in making a Director's Cut for DVD release. Luckily for him, he has made some amazing films in his career so he has a ton of pull with the studio. He had an amazing amount of control over Batman Begins considering the circumstances that he was inexperienced compared to say Bryan Singer, who had experience with 2 big budget superhero films when he was hired for Superman Returns. But obviously Nolan handled the costs of Begins very well (actual cost was $135 million vs. the budgeted cost of $150 million) and he made a great film that was successful at the box office and on DVD. The studio has even more trust in him now, although I'm sure he doesn't trust them a single bit. What we see in theaters will be the Director's Cut just like it was with Batman Begins.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Another one, keep it with your farm animals. Not in here.

Huh? What you're talking about? I mention no farm animals. Are you being sarcastic or something?

Tell that to Harvey Dent

Hmmm.....maybe I'll keep it to myself next time. I don't think I would like to say that to him. What if he cap me when he became Two-Face? :

 

[BubbaGump]

The longer the better, I always say...for Batman movies that is.

A near 3 hour Batman film? I can dig.

 

[jmc]

Nolan doesn't believe in making a Director's Cut for DVD release. Luckily for him, he has made some amazing films in his career so he has a ton of pull with the studio. He had an amazing amount of control over Batman Begins considering the circumstances that he was inexperienced compared to say Bryan Singer, who had experience with 2 big budget superhero films when he was hired for Superman Returns. But obviously Nolan handled the costs of Begins very well (actual cost was $135 million vs. the budgeted cost of $150 million) and he made a great film that was successful at the box office and on DVD. The studio has even more trust in him now, although I'm sure he doesn't trust them a single bit. What we see in theaters will be the Director's Cut just like it was with Batman Begins.

WB really got BB for a bargain, it's the closest thing to a low budget superhero film as you'll get. And whilst I'm a fan of directors cut films, I got nothing wrong with an artist being content with his work and not screwing with it afterwards (maybe George Lucas could learn from Nolan t.

 

[redfirebird2008]

WB really got BB for a bargain, it's the closest thing to a low budget superhero film as you'll get. And whilst I'm a fan of directors cut films, I got nothing wrong with an artist being content with his work and not screwing with it afterwards (maybe George Lucas could learn from Nolan t.

Especially when you consider the costs involved with building the Narrows sets, building multiple Tumblers (supposedly around $10 million each), the cost of filming in Iceland, etc. It's pretty impressive that he managed it on $135 million.

 

[gdw]

Wait a minute, you mean not only did he produce one of the best Comic book films, but he came in UNDER budget???? That's unheard of.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Wait a minute, you mean not only did he produce one of the best Comic book films, but he came in UNDER budget???? That's unheard of.

From what I understand, that's how it played out. Nolan = total badass, no doubt about it. t:

 

[Conebone69]

140 minutes is perfect... I dont want it to be too long cuz movies tend to wear out after awhile. Even good movies

 

[BMM]

How is Batman Begins the closest thing to a low budget superhero film? It’s on par with, if not more than, the cost of other superhero movie franchise starters. Regardless, I’m glad The Dark Knight will have some length to it. It’s nice not to have a truncated version of a story that should have some meat to it. *coughFoxcough*

 

[redfirebird2008]

How is Batman Begins the closest thing to a low budget superhero film? It’s on par with, if not more than, the cost of other superhero movie franchise starters. Regardless, I’m glad The Dark Knight will have some length to it. It’s nice not to have a truncated version of a story that should have some meat to it. *coughFoxcough*

How much did 300 cost? $75 million. It was all CGI. 300 isn't a superhero movie obviously, but many superhero films employ a ton of CGI. CGI usually saves money versus building huge set pieces, which is what the crew did in Batman Begins. The stunts are mostly real rather than CGI, the buildings are real rather than CGI, etc. To make a movie with such a huge scope, including Iceland of all places, with such huge building costs ($10 million for each Tumbler, and there were several of them!) on a $135 million budget is pretty impressive. Compare it with Spidey 3, which ran up a nice $270 million budget for no apparent reason. Or hell, Spidey 2, which ran up a $200 million budget.

 

[byte19]

How is Batman Begins the closest thing to a low budget superhero film? It’s on par with, if not more than, the cost of other superhero movie franchise starters. Regardless, I’m glad The Dark Knight will have some length to it. It’s nice not to have a truncated version of a story that should have some meat to it. *coughFoxcough*

because it was expected to cost 150 ml. or more when Nolan made it for 135 ml.! was any superhero film made AT budget let alone UNDER IT??
besides however TDK is, i'll be there for 2 showings at I-MAX, and all day and night in standard theaters; about 9 times!

 

[Crook]

because it was expected to cost 150 ml. or more when Nolan made it for 135 ml.! was any superhero film made AT budget let alone UNDER IT??

That just means the money management was excellently done. Has nothing to do with BB being low-budget, on any accounts.

 

[byte19]

Nolan makes the spidey films under 175 ml.and he'd be praised for money management?

dude...

 

[dubdue]

Nolan doesn't believe in making a Director's Cut for DVD release. Luckily for him, he has made some amazing films in his career so he has a ton of pull with the studio. He had an amazing amount of control over Batman Begins considering the circumstances that he was inexperienced compared to say Bryan Singer, who had experience with 2 big budget superhero films when he was hired for Superman Returns. But obviously Nolan handled the costs of Begins very well (actual cost was $135 million vs. the budgeted cost of $150 million) and he made a great film that was successful at the box office and on DVD. The studio has even more trust in him now, although I'm sure he doesn't trust them a single bit. What we see in theaters will be the Director's Cut just like it was with Batman Begins.

People I've talked to have said the same thing.

We better hope there are no cuts, because, for Nolan, the final cut is the final cut.

 

[BMM]

How much did 300 cost? $75 million. It was all CGI. 300 isn't a superhero movie obviously, but many superhero films employ a ton of CGI. CGI usually saves money versus building huge set pieces, which is what the crew did in Batman Begins. The stunts are mostly real rather than CGI, the buildings are real rather than CGI, etc. To make a movie with such a huge scope, including Iceland of all places, with such huge building costs ($10 million for each Tumbler, and there were several of them!) on a $135 million budget is pretty impressive. Compare it with Spidey 3, which ran up a nice $270 million budget for no apparent reason. Or hell, Spidey 2, which ran up a $200 million budget.

I agree those feats are impressive. Still, Batman Begins is on par with the more expensive superhero movies. It cost more to make than Blade, Blade II, Blade: Trinity, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: ROSS, Hellboy, Hellboy II, Punisher, X-Men, X2: X-Men United (nevermind movies like 300, Sin City, V for Vendetta, etc.) and it's on par with the costs of Spider-Man and Hulk. That's like 3/4 of the current superhero genre. The only superhero movies that I can think of that really outrank it are Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3, Superman Returns, and X-Men: TLS... and those are 4 of the more expensive movies made, let alone superhero movies.

I will say as studios dump more money into this genre, that Batman Begins will probably start to move down lower on that list, but right now it's pretty high up there.

That just means the money management was excellently done. Has nothing to do with BB being low-budget, on any accounts.

Exactly.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

The longer the better, I always say...

That's what she said.

 

[bkey]

That's what she said.

lmao

 

[byte19]

preeeeciecly!!

 

[Crook]

Nolan makes the spidey films under 175 ml.and he'd be praised for money management?

dude...

What in the world are you talking about? Address my points.

I don't care if he made it under budget, anything north of 100 million is not remotely close to being a low-budget comic book film.

 

[SeriousDuke]

Sequels of good movies are usually longer than the original... not too sure why, they just are. It will be 140 minutes or longer.

 

[metropolitanpsy]

why cant they make 3hr batman movies
i had to sit thru boring 3 hr lord of the rings,batman deserves to be longer!!!!!

plus this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03KsxLACwfM

 

[The Battousai]

why cant they make 3hr batman movies
i had to sit thru boring 3 hr lord of the rings,batman deserves to be longer!!!!!

plus this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03KsxLACwfM

Why did you have to sit through it if it bothered you enough to complain?

Or are you just talking about ROTK? If so, then just stop watching when it gets to the Epilogue section at the end. Problem solved