The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - Part 138

[Travesty]

Yeah, and he's not going to make a 15 x 15 painting that has vital image information on the outer edges that make the painting better, but he knows he'll have to cut out. He actually paints it all into the 10 x 10. So Nolan set out to make a 2:45 movie, and he did. So why the talk of the extra footage that should have made it in...unless he f'ed up and purposely painted on the 15x15 edges? I think he's competent enough not to screw up that bad, but you never know, this could be his first misstep in that sense.

I never said anything about extra footage that should have made it in, I was saying I think he molded the movie around the 2:45 screen time on purpose of the IMAX restrictions. Hell, I even called the screen times months before anything was official, and I was just doing it, knowing that the story would be bigger than TDK, but wont be able to exceed IMAX. But I guess that was just a coincidence too?

 

[Deserana]

TDKR's editing is strange. It is exactly the same person who has done Nolan's last few films. Including Inception which many thought should have won the best editing oscar. Just seems weird that the same guy would make a few weird desicions regarding TDKR.

 

[Marvolo]

You really think Nolan fell victim to that? If so....he F'ed up royally in the writing stage coming in with something so obviously too long. Do you really think he had that bad of a brain fart...that a much longer film that was actually better would ultimately fall victim to an executively-motivated knife?


And longer than 2:45 does not mean no IMAX...it would mean IMAX with an intermission, and only for the few true IMAX theaters. LieMAX and regular projection in all those multiplexes are unaffected buy the length, but they are still affected by the cutting. Nice job, Nolan.


Because you're not seeing the whole picture. Either that, or you're assuming that he was careless enough on this production to allow such a thing to happen...and that maybe someday we'll find out that all this happy trilogy send-off and celebration, all the positive interviews and such hides the real sinister truth of WB's golden boy being ****ed at the end to avoid an extra 15 minutes of intermission in the fewest number of screenings. Heck..I'm almost hoping that is the case as it'll be fascinating when the fallout does happen.

Im assuming Nolan isnt perfect, and makes mistakes like any other human being. Im also assuming he is prey to the same studio ******** every other director is. Its obvious to anyone who followed the production closely and saw the final product that the ball was dropped in a few places. Why its so inconceivable that editing was one of those troubled places baffles me. The film is 2:40 and feels truncated. That is a red flag. If it was bloated that would be par for the course at that runtime. But a film that length does not feel truncated unless some stuff was left out or scenes werent allowed to breathe or the film wasnt arranged properly. All this among other things.

It could well be the old "More showings" possible thing going on. Another 15-20 minutes might be one less showing a day.

It is entirely possible.

 

[KalMart]

Im assuming Nolan isnt perfect, and makes mistakes like any other human being. Im also assuming he is prey to the same studio ******** every other director is.

It's probably more the former than the latter...and in the actual writing and arranging of the film itself. Because if anyone aside from Cameron could get a studio to agree to an intermission IMAX showing, it's Nolan. But again, I think people have a bit of a harder time with the former than the latter.

And it's not just the major studios that can force shorter times, either....especially for smaller films. The most anticipated blockbuster movie of the year, on a near record number of screens, on the other hand....


Edit: By the way, I didn't mean to belittle the fact that you're enthusiastic about films and editing...so I apologize if it sounded that way. Although I do feel that it's a bit too 'accessible' to people through software, I appreciate it when people have an interest in what used to be a more 'invisible' craft.

 

[KalMart]

I never said anything about extra footage that should have made it in, I was saying I think he molded the movie around the 2:45 screen time on purpose of the IMAX restrictions. Hell, I even called the screen times months before anything was official, and I was just doing it, knowing that the story would be bigger than TDK, but wont be able to exceed IMAX. But I guess that was just a coincidence too?

I didn't mean you in particular, but the majority of this 'IMAX limit' or cut footage talk stems out of a sense of disappointment with the finished film, or feeling it 'should have been longer'. But again, that's still not the smartest tying if he's got carte blanche and puts a 2:45 hard ceiling if what he ends up with should be longer. If people don't think it should have been longer or if it had length/size issues, then it doesn't really matter if he did it for IMAX or not. Unless of course...people are just asking out of coincidence.

So you liked it as it was?

 

[Deserana]

I didn't mean you in particular, but the majority of this 'IMAX limit' or cut footage talk stems out of a sense of disappointment with the finished film, or feeling it 'should have been longer'. But again, that's still not the smartest tying if he's got carte blanche and puts a 2:45 hard ceiling if what he ends up with should be longer. If people don't think it should have been longer or if it had length/size issues, then it doesn't really matter if he did it for IMAX or not. Unless of course...people are just asking out of coincidence.

So you liked it as it was?

I wouldn't say Nolan had carte blanche for TDKR. He had that for Inception but not here. Not matter how big Nolan is for WB Batman is still theirs.

I personally loved TDKR as it is but an extended cut would enhance it. It does feel like it was cut down in some parts though we do know that isn't the case as the shooting script is practically the film.

 

[Marvolo]

I wouldn't say Nolan had carte blanche for TDKR. He had that for Inception but not here. Not matter how big Nolan is for WB Batman is still theirs.

I personally loved TDKR as it is but an extended cut would enhance it. It does feel like it was cut down in some parts though we do know that isn't the case as the shooting script is practically the film.

It isnt even whole scenes. Its little bits here, seconds there, a snip over there. I dont think it needs a monstosity of an extended cut but it some scenes could use some added beats to give them more breathing room.

 

[Deserana]

It isnt even whole scenes. Its little bits here, seconds there, a snip over there. I dont think it needs a monstosity of an extended cut but it some scenes could use some added beats to give them more breathing room.

That's how I feel as well.

 

[KalMart]

I wouldn't say Nolan had carte blanche for TDKR. He had that for Inception but not here. Not matter how big Nolan is for WB Batman is still theirs.

But again the fact that it's already past 2:30-2:40 tells you that he had a lot of control over it. To penny-pinch over an intermission on so few screenings, even if it is IMAX, is something that despite WB's size, there would have been a big conflict over if it was this alleged 20 minutes that some are proposing. 3 or 5, much easier to trim here and there. Entire scenes...not if Nolan wasn't okay with losing the anyway. If so...then we need to acknowledge that he dropped the ball big time by letting it get so long being forced to chop it.

I personally loved TDKR as it is but an extended cut would enhance it. It does feel like it was cut down in some parts though we do know that isn't the case as the shooting script is practically the film.

I really don't agree, based on what is in the film. What needed to be cut down was in the writing phase...and truthfully, the story could have removed Catwoman and still had plenty to tell it well with some better elbow room. She was great with what she did, but the rest of the movie could have used the space. But that's just one element.

It needed less stuff...or an even longer extra time than many are suggesting, or two films. And again, that would have been a major slip no Nolan's part. But whichever one thinks...we can't point to IMAX as the reason for it. The responsibility lies squarely on the filmmaker's shoulders. If IMAX did affect it adversely, then it;'s his fault for letting it get to that point.....which may be the case, but because he's still so good at what he does, it still turned out to be pretty good and not a disaster.

 

[Travesty]

So you liked it as it was?

Not really, but I rather not get into exactly why, cause I've said it many times. But I will say, I don't think the running time is what killed it, but more of the fact that too many characters weren't needed. I think 2:45 is a LOT of time for a movie, it's just the time wasn't used properly, IMO. And no, I don't necessarily think extra scenes would help it....maybe to an extent, but that's not what I had problems with.

 

[KalMart]

Not really, but I rather not get into exactly why, cause I've said it many times. But I will say, I don't think the running time is what killed it, but more of the fact that too many characters weren't needed. I think 2:45 is a LOT of time for a movie, it's just the time wasn't used properly, IMO. And no, I don't necessarily think extra scenes would help it....maybe to an extent, but that's not what I had problems with.

I agree for the most part.

 

[Deserana]

But again the fact that it's already past 2:30-2:40 tells you that he had a lot of control over it. To penny-pinch over an intermission on so few screenings, even if it is IMAX, is something that despite WB's size, there would have been a big conflict over if it was this alleged 20 minutes that some are proposing. 3 or 5, much easier to trim here and there. Entire scenes...not if Nolan wasn't okay with losing the anyway. If so...then we need to acknowledge that he dropped the ball big time by letting it get so long being forced to chop it.

The Dark Knight is also 2:30-2:40 and BB is also quite a bit longer than the average comic book film was at that time so I'd say Nolan had just as much control here as he did throughout the trilogy. However, to WB this is still theirs I was just saying that Nolan did not have carte blanche with TDKR. Carte blanche is free reign, anything he wants with TDKR he is already restricted as it is a studios franchise at he has to work within a universe that is laid out and needs to satisfy a fanbase is already established.

 

[KalMart]

The Dark Knight is also 2:30-2:40 and BB is also quite a bit longer than the average comic book film was at that time so I'd say Nolan had just as much control here as he did throughout the trilogy. However, to WB this is still theirs I was just saying that Nolan did not have carte blanche with TDKR. Carte blanche is free reign, anything he wants with TDKR he is already restricted as it is a studios franchise at he has to work within a universe that is laid out and needs to satisfy a fanbase is already established.

Right, so again, if there were really a concern with length, it would have come in sooner and they would have pushed for much shorter than 2:30. It's not like this was the straw that broke the camel's back over two movies of resentment by the studio...and they decided to screw him now. Yes, Batman is still WB's, but you don't think they'd recognize that because of him it's the king of superhero franchises and they're not the laughing stock of studios for being the caretakers? And if a movie is longer, it's because he feels best about that length...and if he feels the best about it, the better it's likely to be and make them more money. After how many movies with the guy?

It's highly doubtful that he was pushing some 200+ minute eon of a movie on them...that's a monumental WTF. And after making them as much money as he has, and him lending the credence of his name/involvement to the upcoming Superman movie, they'd be stabbing him in the back to make him cut some 15-20 precious minutes that he didn't want gone. They'd be punishing all screenings just to adjust it for the fewest of them....that's not wise. As as mentioned...IF this ended up happening, then it's still a major screw up by Nolan to let it happen. It's like tripping at the end of a marathon and not finishing as well because you never tied your shoelaces. Could it have happened? Sure...he could have had a massive brain fart after trying to do too much with this movie, he's human. But it is still ultimately his fault, and not WB/IMAX's for something he already knew and whiffed on anyway.

 

[TinkerTailor]

I really don't agree, based on what is in the film. What needed to be cut down was in the writing phase...and truthfully, the story could have removed Catwoman and still had plenty to tell it well with some better elbow room. She was great with what she did, but the rest of the movie could have used the space. But that's just one element.

It needed less stuff...or an even longer extra time than many are suggesting, or two films. And again, that would have been a major slip no Nolan's part. But whichever one thinks...we can't point to IMAX as the reason for it. The responsibility lies squarely on the filmmaker's shoulders. If IMAX did affect it adversely, then it;'s his fault for letting it get to that point.....which may be the case, but because he's still so good at what he does, it still turned out to be pretty good and not a disaster.

I completely agree with the sentiment here.

The problem with the film was the script. It almost felt like a first draft that needed to be moulded into something more coherent and daring. Some of the most interesting ideas that the film introduced were dropped for the sake of generic blockbuster tropes rather than being developed properly.

Each time I've seen it I've left the theatre feeling that it managed to be really bloated yet very simplistic at the same time. It's a strange dichotomy.

 

[KalMart]

I completely agree with the sentiment here.

The problem with the film was the script. It almost felt like a first draft that needed to be moulded into something more coherent and daring. Some of the most interesting ideas that the film introduced were dropped for the sake of generic blockbuster tropes rather than being developed properly.

Each time I've seen it I've left the theatre feeling that it managed to be really bloated yet very simplistic at the same time. It's a strange dichotomy.

It did feel weird at the end. Like it was one of the only times I could recall a movie felt both too long and too short at the same time.

Also, it felt a bit clunky in the beginning...then bunched at the end, which probably contributed.

 

[Darkmania]

I see some people feel Catwoman could have been cut out. Does anyone feel it would have been okay if Miranda Tate was cut out completely, or was she too valuable in terms of the overall story?

 

[Marvolo]

Ive been pondering that as well. Drop the twist and Mirandas character and just have Talia be Talia. It did bring her full circle with her father tho. Bruce was pulled in by Duccard then found out he was Ras. Bruce was pulled in by Miranda then found out she was Talia.

 

[KalMart]

I see some people feel Catwoman could have been cut out. Does anyone feel it would have been okay if Miranda Tate was cut out completely, or was she too valuable in terms of the overall story?

I think they could have written her out if they had to. But unfortunately, she at least had function as who Wayne wanted to leave the company with, and a personal tie to Ra's/LOS, love interest, etc.. The problem was that it was all told at the end with a (yet again) expository speech and 'guess who I am?', instead of discovering that she was playing them the whole time, and looking back and realizing all the clues. It felt like a twist that was tacked on, moreso than one that was really weaved in. Yeah, she could have gone too...but then it would've been too much of a sausage-fest for some.

 

[Marvolo]

The twist reveal got a lot of strong reactions from both audiences i saw it with. Tacked on or not it worked. As for the character, I like Talia in the movie but found Tate boring as all ****.

 

[KalMart]

It didn't not work, but it wasn't 'wow!'....more of an '...oh...'. It added a twist of character, but not really any more dimension to the story....except making Bane a bit more sympathetic.

 

[Marvolo]

It didn't not work, but it wasn't 'wow!'....more of an '...oh...'. It added a twist of character, but not really any more dimension to the story....except making Bane a bit more sympathetic.

I dont know not many people saw it coming unless you read comics or was spoiled during production. That alone gives it a wow factor. Least no one i went with saw it coming. When it was revealed there were intakes of breath, "oh ****"s and various other reactions among the audience. It definitely made me look at Bane differently. I knew the twist was coming due to being spoiled but i didnt know that Bane and her would have that type of relationship.

 

[Travesty]

I dont know not many people saw it coming unless you read comics or was spoiled during production. That alone gives it a wow factor. Least no one i went with saw it coming. When it was revealed there were intakes of breath, "oh ****"s and various other reactions among the audience. It definitely made me look at Bane differently. I knew the twist was coming due to being spoiled but i didnt know that Bane and her would have that type of relationship.

I saw the Bane and Talia connection the second we saw young Talia who was supposed to be young Bane in prison. But of course, that was because I knew who played young Talia, and that she had to shave her head.

 

[KalMart]

I dont know not many people saw it coming unless you read comics or was spoiled during production. That alone gives it a wow factor. Least no one i went with saw it coming. When it was revealed there were intakes of breath, "oh ****"s and various other reactions among the audience. It definitely made me look at Bane differently. I knew the twist was coming due to being spoiled but i didnt know that Bane and her would have that type of relationship.

Again it's not about seeing it coming or not. It's that when it came, it wasn't that big of a deal in the way it was revealed/delivered. For those who did know....we knew Bane was going to beat up Batman in their first fight, and it was still brutal...we knew that Batman would get a flying craft, and it was still cool. With Talia, you didn't feel it in reactions (there were none), whether you knew before or not, it was just the next part of the story at that point. It was a twist...technically..and yes a surprise because it was written as one. But not a very intriguing one. Maybe contributed to by, like you mentioned, Tate being a rather bland character throughout the film....and being jumbled in with so many other things that they were trying to throw at you summed up by character speeches.

 

[TinkerTailor]

I see some people feel Catwoman could have been cut out. Does anyone feel it would have been okay if Miranda Tate was cut out completely, or was she too valuable in terms of the overall story?

I think it could have done without Tate and The LOS connection entirely. It would have given more room for Bruce and Selina's relationship, Bane would have been his own beast and there would have been more room to explore the whole idea of the conflict between the have and have nots in Gotham.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

They showed moments of madness in Ducard and Dent before their reveal/turn. They didn't do that with Miranda. The way they telegraphed there was something up with her was her quotes. "You understand only money and the power you think it buys," "You have to invest if you want to restore balance," etc. And, if you are smarter than Bruce Wayne, you figured out that the child wasn't Bane in the flashbacks. Otherwise, Miranda was a pretty angel to contrast to Selina's misdeeds.