The Dark Knight Rises Should "TDKR" have been split into TWO films/parts?

[herolee10]

Given on how I've read many saying that they thought A LOT was pushed into the plot for "TDKR", more so than any other previous Nolan film, and how some characters and plots were underdeveloped due to the limited screen time, do you guys feels that Warner Bros. and Nolan should have split the events of "The Dark Knight Rises" into two films like how they had done with both the last Harry Potter film and what they're doing with "The Hobbit"? Or is it better that they just kept it under one film?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No. It just needed 30 more minutes.

 

[Boom]

I've thought long and hard about it, and my answer is no. All they needed to do was cut out the excessive/unnecessary fat and allow the film more breathing room to develop its themes.

 

[Charlie The Red]

I voted "Yes," but only because I thought it could use an intermission after Bane's speech on top of the Tumbler.

That way the IMAX time limitations would be null and we could get a bit more story fleshed out, such as Alfred trying to track down Bruce, the Foley scenes, and everything going on with Selina and her street urchin friend.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Given on how I've read many saying that they thought A LOT was pushed into the plot for "TDKR", more so than any other previous Nolan film, and how some characters and plots were underdeveloped due to the limited screen time, do you guys feels that Warner Bros. and Nolan should have split the events of "The Dark Knight Rises" into two films like how they had done with both the last Harry Potter film and what they're doing with "The Hobbit"? Or is it better that they just kept it under one film?

The funny thing about The Hobbit is that there may now be a third installment, lol.

It may work with Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games because they're books and that these writers/directors want to make their audience happy and do the last installment faithfully as that would always be the hardest. It made sense for that, imo.

No. It just needed 30 more minutes.

I think ten-fifteen more minutes would actually have been just enough. Only certain scenes needed more time and the final battle needed to be longer.

 

[Kizzo02]

No. It just needed 30 more minutes.

Yep, maybe 20 or 30 minutes. I was thinking of the two films solution at first, but after seeing it twice. It only needs extra minutes to iron things out.

 

[Boom]

The funny thing about The Hobbit is that there may now be a third installment, lol.

It may work with Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games because they're books and that these writers/directors want to make their audience happy and do the last installment faithfully as that would always be the hardest. It made sense for that, imo.



I think ten-fifteen more minutes would actually have been just enough. Only certain scenes needed more time and the final battle needed to be longer.

I'm hoping that the supposed third Hobbit film isn't a Hobbit film at all, and is actually the "bridge" film that was originally going to be made back when the project was in pre-production.

At least that way, I can ignore its existence if it ends up being awful.

 

[Victarion]

I've thought long and hard about it, and my answer is no. All they needed to do was cut out the excessive/unnecessary fat and allow the film more breathing room to develop its themes.

Where?

About a year, or 6 months ago when this topic came up, I thought splitting it would be silly. While I still rate this as a 9/10 and the best of the trilogy, a split might be good. More background on Selina, more time in Bane's Gotham (showing the criminals breaking into the homes of Gotham's public servants, dragging them out etc. Maybe hanging them from street lamps, near the courts etc. More on the resistance. More on Bane's background, much of it given during Bruce's time in that Pit from a prisoner who knew Bane or something).

 

[Zatanna]

No. It just needed 30 more minutes.

This would have proved useful on expanding on Selina's character, and Talia's.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I'm not saying yes it should've been split in two parts but if were and released within 6 months of each other then part 1 would end with Batman's broken back that was part 2 would deal with Alfred's whereabouts, Bruce's recuperation and the 5 months Gotham has been taken over by Bane.