The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[OnLeatherWings]

2.5 hours is my sweet spot. I just find I'm more likely to re-watch something when it's in that range. Anything longer and I have trouble carving out time to re-watch it more.

I never noticed this about myself until your post - but you're on the money for my feelings, too.

 

[Nardz937]

Keaton and Patty.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Fellow dudes, which pair of sunglasses are you sportin?

 

[shauner111]

I like shorter movies cuz I can rewatch em more often. So that’s why the sequel should be around that length in my opinion.

I just wonder why fans think their personal comfort & taste should affect the artists views on how short or long they feel their story should be. I doubt as many ppl thought this way decades ago. Movies used to be longer. Or the more accurate way to say it is...movies that were just as long in the old days were not met with the same amount of groans from the audience. People didn’t complain as much. And that’s because we’re spoiled. It’s a ADD generation. Not literal ADD. That’s real. Im talking the fake “my attention span is lower because I’m given everything at once. I want it now. In and out. Not too much time please. Movies don’t need to be 3 hours or even 2.5 man! I have things to do!”. Or my recent favourite thing to read on twitter “if it takes you 3 hours to tell a story then it’s not a very good story to begin with!”.

Stop asking for shorter on principle. Or asking for longer because you want to spend more time in that world (I bet you I’ve asked for this too). How about this friends. We let each filmmaker tell the story they want to tell. 90 minutes or 4 hours. “A Batman movie doesn’t need to be as long as Ari Aster’s new film though!” how do you know that? Maybe the director disagrees with you. “It’s a Lord of the Rings movie so it needs to be an epic!” Why must it be? Every time? Maybe the new director wants his LOTR to be 1 hr 55 because they can’t see that particular story being a minute longer.

Criticizing the movie post-release is way more reasonable than criticizing an imaginary number before you’ve even read the script.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

Shauner, I'm gonna call you out here.

People can have their own tastes. Let them be.

Everytime anyone says anything remotely critical, in you swoop in to tell them how wrong they are and you can't let it go.

Maybe we don't all want or enjoy the same things. Maybe certain beats don't hit right for everyone.

You can't police criticism of this film.

Just...relax.

 

[shauner111]

Yet everyone is trying to police Reeves and other filmmakers for making a long movie before they even see the movie..

 

[Boom]

Personally I'd like the sequel to clock in closer to 2.5 hours.

Every friend and family member I have who's seen The Batman has complained about the runtime. And while I think it's the best Batman movie, it doesn't have the rewatchability of The Dark Knight. Even the Lord of the Rings films, which clock in longer than The Batman, move along at a more brisk pace. I applaud Reeves for the character work in the film, and a detective story deserves a more deliberate pace, but those things coupled with such a long runtime make it hard to revisit as often as I'd like to.

I love the film, but at the same time I feel the length. If that makes sense.

 

[BatLobster]

I agree @Boom. I'm also one of the biggest TDKR fans you'll find on this forum and I've always said that because of the film's length it's just not a movie I'm able to sit down and I watch in full too often (at least in one sitting). It's not a criticism but it just is what it is.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a long movie but I do think it helps with a series like this to kind of build to that feeling of a film with some girth to it. Sometimes I think it's actually nice to realize "wow, so much has happened but there's still a lot of movie left", when you're super invested in something. I just think the first film of a reboot maybe wasn't the ideal time for that. A reboot is supposed to set the table and leave you wanting a little more. I know most fans are like "I could've sat through 10 hours" and want more no matter what, but I think a general audience member has kind of had their fill by the end of it. In some ways, The Batman almost plays like there's a first film we haven't seen and it leaps right into its "epic middle chapter". I applaud the ambition (and execution for the most part) but I think there was always going to be some portion of the audience that dings the movie for that. Because honestly it's not really a movie that's jam packed with plot if you look at the story. I do think this same story could've been trimmed. It's just a very methodically paced film that emphasizes mood and draws out its scenes, and it's also using the plot as a mechanism to fill out backstory. It's using the detective movie angle to world-build and deliver exposition about Gotham's history, to help compensate for not having a true 'origin' film. I think the movie always feels like it comes the most alive for me in the Colson bomb sequence for me, because the Gotham history of corruption angle collides with the immediacy and stakes of what's happening in that moment really effectively. That, and Dano crushes it there and Sarsgaard sells the hell out of being terrified.

With a lot of that backstory established now, I'm hopeful that a sequel can be a bit tighter.

 

[Captain Tired]

Wait a second I'm confused, was Shauner being a hothead just then?

Is that what was happening there?

 

[Gothamsknight]

 

[I Am The Knight]

Wait a second I'm confused, was Shauner being a hothead just then?

Is that what was happening there?

Not sure what prompted that rant after what was a fairly reasonable post about how it's easier for people to sit through a 2.5 hour movie. I don't think anyone is demanding that Reeves cuts his next film shorter or anything. As for me, I was fine with The Batman's runtime. I actually feel it needed to be a bit longer to give more meat to a character or two there

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Shauner, I'm gonna call you out here.

People can have their own tastes. Let them be.

Everytime anyone says anything remotely critical, in you swoop in to tell them how wrong they are and you can't let it go.

Maybe we don't all want or enjoy the same things. Maybe certain beats don't hit right for everyone.

You can't police criticism of this film.

Just...relax.

THANK you.

 

[Kane52630]

I love a long movie...if they're good. Thankfully The Batman was.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

THANK you.

I hate calling out someone specifically - it's just that mentality is one of the reasons I rarely visit here anymore and I check back to see if anything's changed, and it hasn't.

It's just not fun to be around and talk to because it always comes from a place of bad faith and "you're wrong!!!"

Especially when even the slightest critique garners a huge reaction/retort that you're expected to answer to. How is that fun or a good conversation?

 

[DeadlyWest]

To give a brief change in subject, went through the movie again and took screenshots of my favourite shots in the movie, so figured I'd dump a few of them here for obvious reasons



God I ****ing love this movie

 

[Gothamsknight]

The GOAT (he is in my mind!) Talking about Rob.

 

[BatLobster]

LOL I love it even more if they actually had a meaningful conversation but Rob is only giving the peeing part as a soundbite. Also, Bale following in Keaton's footsteps with the "I hear wonderful things" bit.

Good stuff. Looking forward to seeing Bale in Love & Thunder.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Would love to see Bale and Pattinson in a film together.

 

[antsman41]

Would love to see Bale and Pattinson in a film together.

Directed by Soderbergh.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Depending on how things go with his character in the sequels Rob could my new GOAT

 

[TheGDBatman]

I like shorter movies cuz I can rewatch em more often. So that’s why the sequel should be around that length in my opinion.

I just wonder why fans think their personal comfort & taste should affect the artists views on how short or long they feel their story should be. I doubt as many ppl thought this way decades ago. Movies used to be longer. Or the more accurate way to say it is...movies that were just as long in the old days were not met with the same amount of groans from the audience. People didn’t complain as much. And that’s because we’re spoiled. It’s a ADD generation. Not literal ADD. That’s real. Im talking the fake “my attention span is lower because I’m given everything at once. I want it now. In and out. Not too much time please. Movies don’t need to be 3 hours or even 2.5 man! I have things to do!”. Or my recent favourite thing to read on twitter “if it takes you 3 hours to tell a story then it’s not a very good story to begin with!”.

Stop asking for shorter on principle. Or asking for longer because you want to spend more time in that world (I bet you I’ve asked for this too). How about this friends. We let each filmmaker tell the story they want to tell. 90 minutes or 4 hours. “A Batman movie doesn’t need to be as long as Ari Aster’s new film though!” how do you know that? Maybe the director disagrees with you. “It’s a Lord of the Rings movie so it needs to be an epic!” Why must it be? Every time? Maybe the new director wants his LOTR to be 1 hr 55 because they can’t see that particular story being a minute longer.

Criticizing the movie post-release is way more reasonable than criticizing an imaginary number before you’ve even read the script.

I feel like the first part is somewhat directed at me.... so here's a breakdown of my reaction to your post in the context of the discussion we were having:

1.) Huh?
2.) What?
3.) Really?
4.) Come on.
5.) Stop.

No one is sitting here saying that the movie NEEDS to be that length or else the movie will factually suck (and if someone did and I missed it, I fundamentally disagree with them anyways). I'm sure we will all watch the movie regardless of how long it is. All I said (and I'll just speak for myself on this one), is that my preferred run time is 2.5 hours. I loved The Batman, run time and all, but the fact remains that it's hard for me to make time for additional viewings when it is as long as it is. This isn't a knock on the film. It's not a knock on the pacing or the plot. I wouldn't change it simply so I could watch it more.

My problem with your post is that you immediately assume that every poster who states "I like shorter movies cuz I can rewatch em more often" are criticizing a movie that hasn't been released, or are in some way implying that long movies are bad and that The Batman, by default isn't good to some degree because of the length.

We have no idea how long the sequel will be. Hell, I bet Matt Reeves has no idea how long the movie will be. Will the movie justify a long runtime? Maybe! Will it justify a short run time? Maybe! But the fact remains that movies that are 2.5 hours or shorter tend to get more plays in my house. This isn't me banging on Matt Reeves' window screaming "150 MINUTES OR ELSE". This is me saying "I have a kid, a job, and a swath of hobbies, and I just don't have time to watch a 3 hour movie that I deeply enjoy as much as I'd like to". So yeah, in a perfect world, I'd get a 2.5 hour movie from Reeves that's an absolute banger that I can watch multiple times throughout the year BECAUSE I WANT TO AND IT FITS MY LIFE BETTER. If it's 4 hours and I still love it, great. I am not requiring that the movie be that length or else "my low attention span" will get in the way and I'll knock a full star off of my review! I'm simply stating a fact. A fact that is particular to me.

*Insert Hothead Meme*

 

[BatLobster]

That is the thing with the whole runtime conversation. People are coming at it from different places in terms of the amount of free "watch time" they have. I have a friend with 3 kids who's a big Batman fan, was very interested in The Batman...and still hasn't even managed to see the movie. It's a 3 hour movie that's not suitable for kids. And there's an overwhelming amount of content being thrown at us these days. So, do the math. There's a lot of reasons why the epic length movie isn't always going to be ideal for people, just from a time standpoint and the fact that we fortunately/unfortunately do live in a time where there's just an overwhelming amount of content to get lost in. I mean, not even just all the streaming TV series....think about all the Youtube content you enjoy too. It's a lot. I'm not saying this as is always a good thing, because I don't want to spend my whole life in front of screens just consuming stuff. I have my own creative hobbies and interests that are important to me when I get free time. But I think it's no wonder that people are more "ADD" about stuff now. The way mass media and social media is operating right now is very much pushing us in that direction.

I still applaud and support Reeves for making the movie the way he saw fit without compromising. It's all good. But I do think for better or worse it was kind of b*llsy move (both for him and WB) to come out of the gate with a film this long.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Catwoman: So, watching me get undressed is part of the job?
Batman: I’ve always been a creepah. Alfred says I creep the kudzu vines that are slowly but surely strangling our dear Dory.

 

[Sawyer]

LOL I love it even more if they actually had a meaningful conversation but Rob is only giving the peeing part as a soundbite. Also, Bale following in Keaton's footsteps with the "I hear wonderful things" bit.

Good stuff. Looking forward to seeing Bale in Love & Thunder.

I recall Affleck bringing up a similar conversation with Bale after his casting. I’d love it if Bale rang Keaton up just to check if he’d gotten that treatment coming back to the role.

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

Well, even the Cinemasins guy said the movie is awesome but he still somehow found 152 sins though. Nostalgia Critic liked the movie as well.