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

[BatZiLLa54]

Anyone have any idea why this is the only Batman incarnation that DOESN'T visit his parents grave to at least pay respects? I'm glad they at least got mentioned in TDKR after TDK decided Rachel was more important.

I remember seeing the graveyard spy pics thinking we're finally going to get it but yet it still never happened. The only thing missing from the trilogy IMO.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Anyone have any idea why this is the only Batman incarnation that DOESN'T visit his parents grave to at least pay respects?

Because literally everything he's doing is to show respect in a way.

 

[Marvolo]

That's cool to hear. I've been doing it professionally for 15 years and from before it was even digital, so trust me, there's a lot that may effect even good editing to feel like not-so-good editing. When you do it a lot for real films, you can pick up when it's the case and when it's more than just the part of the edit that contributes to it, especially when you've been in those situations.


And again, that may be how it's perceived, but there's a lot more that goes into this stuff that says otherwise. It's too easy an excuse to point to IMAX, or even to the editing in this movie. The signs run considerably deeper. I think for many it may be harder to acknowledge that considering it's Nolan than reaching for external factors.

Im not using the editing as an excuse. Im saying the editing is questionable and one of things this film failed at. Editing isnt an external factor. It is what can turn a bunch of disconnected footage into a damn good film case in point The Hurt Locker. It can also hurt a film case in point TDKR. You cant tell me that random transitions, truncated scenes, and shoddy scene arrangements arent a problem in this movie. I get that some of this could be a script problem and some of it is, but the scenes that we know for a fact that lost the beginning or ending and scenes that we know had more time to breathe point to editing problems. Cutting the entrance of a scene leaving a blunt opening case in point Bruce entering the Ball that is a questionable choice in editing. Truncating a scene and making it as short and dry as possible case in point the hospital scene between Bruce and Gordan that is a questionable editing choice. Im not saying editing was the only problem but there were places in this film that could have been arranged better.

 

[KalMart]

I'm glad they didn't spend any more time showing him grieving or brooding over their graves et al. I think it puts more emphasis on the actual virtues and values of being the hero he is, rather than being driven by revenge and anger. I think tat's what BB did very well, in that showed a Batman to acknowledge that the 'dark side' can't be everything. Being Batman has to be a positive as well...it has to build something, otherwise it will destroy the man inside.

So I don't see his not at the graves being a sign of disrespect, but it falls in line with the idea that being Batman is the right thing for him to do period....and that he's continuing their life's work moreso than coping with their lives' ends.

 

[BlackFox]

It's because Nolan is such a good craftsman that we would be more inclined to believe he didn't come out with some 3:20 magnum opus, or somethgin tat should have been two films that had to scramble to make just one IMAX plate. To have one of these movies be 3+ hours just isn't skilled to begin with..it's a gross oversight that you wouldn't expect from him. So it's more likely that he indeed present what he felt was the best cut of his movie AS a movie...and that 2:40-ish was where it comfortably turned out to be, regardless of format.

And yeah, of course comic fans in particular are always going to want more...even if it's a case of quantity over quality. But unfortunately, more recent mass media and inclusion of bonus/behind-the-scenes material has somewhat misguided a lot of moviegoers into thinking that there's always something more out there that they can access or are even entitled to somehow. When it's really no different than it's always been...we get the movie we get...anything else is gravy, but it it's not mandatory.

Yeah, while all of us discuss whether it should be shorter/longer, Nolan's probably sitting there going "its exactly as long as I wanted it to be".

True adding a scene that just isn't good enough in quality is only going to make things worse rather than better, just for the sake of adding more to the film.

But man I gravy!!t:

 

[KalMart]

Im not using the editing as an excuse. Im saying the editing is questionable and one of things this film failed at. Editing isnt an external factor. It is what can turn a bunch of disconnected footage into a damn good film case in point The Hurt Locker. It can also hurt a film case in point TDKR. You cant tell me that random transitions, truncated scenes, and shoddy scene arrangements arent a problem in this movie. I get that some of this could be a script problem and some of it is, but the scenes that we know for a fact that lost the beginning or ending and scenes that we know had more time to breathe point to editing problems.

Not necessarily. It could still very well be deemed exposition of information that the flow didn't need once put together. And/or not providing the kind of space that what did feel rushed needed. Again, I think it's cool that you appreciate the craft of editing, but if you don't actually do it for real with the actual raw material that you need to construct/rearrange, there's a lot that one just naturally doesn't consider to get a better basis to judge by.

Cutting the entrance of a scene leaving a blunt opening case in point Bruce entering the Ball that is a questionable choice in editing. Truncating a scene and making it as short and dry as possible case in point the hospital scene between Bruce and Gordan that is a questionable editing choice. Im not saying editing was the only problem but there were places in this film that could have been arranged better.

I know what you're saying, and I completely understand why one would point to it. Had I not known more from experience, I'd probably agree more. But we also have to give people as accomplished as this enough credit to recognize these things as well if not much better than a moviegoer who's only seeing the final product. We have to assume that if it was recognized, and could be helped by editing it differently..they would. And they wouldn't just do it to fit in IMAX, since it was affecting every cut in every theater...with regular projections far outweighing the true IMAX projections. No...that just doesn't add up unless they really did agree to drop the ball on this last one and put out a version they know to be compromised just to comply with single IMAX plates. That should also say something about the movie as a whole and the people behind it if it actually came down to that...like a famous car designer who came out with a design that you couldn't fit in any parking lot. It's like...really?

If there are any editing 'issues' they are the least of them in what made this film ...let's be honest....a bit of a let-down for quite a few. Unfortunately, I think a place like this may be the least likely really acknowledge it because of the vested interest in the character and fandom, etc.. But trust me, what you're pointing to is most likely just the tip of the iceberg as to what would have actually benefitted this film more.

 

[KalMart]

Yeah, while all of us discuss whether it should be shorter/longer, Nolan's probably sitting there going "its exactly as long as I wanted it to be".

True adding a scene that just isn't good enough in quality is only going to make things worse rather than better, just for the sake of adding more to the film.

But man I gravy!!t:

And you'll probably get some as bonus material anyway. But these things happen. It's still quite an achievement anyway in not being a horrible third movie.

 

[Travesty]

I'm pretty sure it had to do with the IMAX time. The script was 400+ pages, and it was cut down to just fit with the requirements of IMAX? I don't think that's some kind coincidence. For a 400+ script to be chopped down to 240(I think) kinda shows you there was MUCH more to the story than what could be shown in IMAX.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm pretty sure it had to do with the IMAX time. The script was 400+ pages, and it was cut down to just fit with the requirements of IMAX? I don't think that's some kind coincidence. For a 400+ script to be chopped down to 240(I think) kinda shows you there was MUCH more to the story than what could be shown in IMAX.

A 400 page script couldn't be shown in any theater. That's at least a 5 hour movie, any screenwriter knows that it's way over what's possible. I think Jonah intentionally wrote an overly detailed draft to convey everything he wanted to Chris, and then the two of them worked on pairing it down it down to the essentials.

Just my thought.

 

[Darkmania]

Batman did go for Bane's mask several times in their first bout, but he was unsuccessful.

As for Bruce slipping into Gotham undetected, it was a minor irk to me as well. I wanted to see Bruce's journey and return to Gotham, but I can see why an explaination was excluded -- the film's pacing could've been disrupted.

I get what your saying however Bruce looked a bit too polished when they showed him again. I guess they can't show a Batman with facial hair

 

[KalMart]

I'm pretty sure it had to do with the IMAX time. The script was 400+ pages, and it was cut down to just fit with the requirements of IMAX? I don't think that's some kind coincidence. For a 400+ script to be chopped down to 240(I think) kinda shows you there was MUCH more to the story than what could be shown in IMAX.

And again, if so...what does that say about that script they wrote? 400 pages...seriously? What did they think they were going to end up with? Did they decide to get high this time or something?

No, if it was cut down from 2:50 to 2:45, yeah it could be just shaving to make that limit. But 15-20 minutes is still way too much creatively to be dictated by something technical like that. And that would also mean that every single showing is now a version that had to have 15-20 minutes chopped out for the sake of the fewest comparative number of screenings, regardless if it's IMAX.

If a total of 15-20 minutes were cut out of this movie...they HAD to be 15-20 minutes that regardless of format Nolan was creatively comfortable with doing without. Could maybe 2-4 of those minutes been kind of on the fence, then weighed to being cut by the thought of IMAX, maybe. But not the vast majority of it. Otherwise, it's makes Nolan out to suddenly have a stroke of incompetence with this film. And there are some who wonder about that, too. I think he's good enough not to let something so arbitrary affect things so substantially, and that he just felt better about stuff that some don't.

 

[Darkmania]

The other ones I'll grant her, but Bruce didn't know about the mask shielding Bane from pain until he was in the prison.

Hmmm, okay. I guess we just felt that Bruce Wayne, ( a man who could fix the autopilot in the Bat for example) would have figured it out the first time. What did he think Bane was wearing the mask for then?

 

[BatLobster]

Nolan was making light of the fact that the first draft was 400 pages and had "all sorts of crazy stuff in it". They clearly never planned on making that version of the movie, it's more or less a huge brainstorm from Jonah Nolan in screenplay form. He gave Chris every last idea he had.

 

[The Guard]

I really don't think so because there was plenty of verbal explaining/exposition which pretty much tells you that they were condensing to begin with. More running time wouldn't have helped that.

What they needed to do was not so much cut or add huge elements as they needed to just alter/refine some of the existing exposition. There are certain lines of dialogue/exposition that, slightly tweaked, would have made for a tighter, less messy film. There are also certain lines that just didn’t need to be included, and that added nothing to the movie, but only served to diffuse character motivations. Things like Bane being excommunicated from the League of Shadows, for instance. Its never dealt with, and it muddies Bane’s character motivations. Obviously it doesn't matter that he was excommunicated, because here he is leading them. If you're not going to explore the idea of Bane being kicked out, and Talia's feelings on all that, and how it all intersects, why even bother to include it?

Bottom line, though, is that the film needed another 15-20 minutes for the existing elements to breathe and for a few character interactions, namely Bruce/Selina, Bane/Talia and Bruce/Alfred to be developed a little better and more gradually.

And to have Foley's role axed entirely.

From what a friend has told me, there's about 10-15 minutes that were cut, largely involving Foley's subplot, but no major additions to the core characters/storylines.

Anyone have any idea why this is the only Batman incarnation that DOESN'T visit his parents grave to at least pay respects

The obvious answer is that Chris Nolan obviously doesn’t care about such things. Although he gave us a slightly forced dramatic scene of Alfred weeping at the graves...maybe that was supposed to be his nod to the whole idea of paying respects. Dunno. It would have worked even better if we'd seen Bruce make a trip to his parents graves at some point, but ah well.

 

[Greens]

Nolan was making light of the fact that the first draft was 400 pages and had "all sorts of crazy stuff in it". They clearly never planned on making that version of the movie, it's more or less a huge brainstorm from Jonah Nolan in screenplay form. He gave Chris every last idea he had.

And we are entitled to see every last one of those ideas

 

[Travesty]

No, if it was cut down from 2:50 to 2:45, yeah it could be just shaving to make that limit. But 15-20 minutes is still way too much creatively to be dictated by something technical like that. And that would also mean that every single showing is now a version that had to have 15-20 minutes chopped out for the sake of the fewest comparative number of screenings, regardless if it's IMAX.

I'm just saying, that I think they cut the script down to fill up as much as they could on screen....during the script stage. So saying there could be "15-20 min left" is irrelevant, as Nolan has even said he times out everything in the script, so he doesn't have to edit so much. And yes, since Nolan knew from the beginning that he was going to be working with IMAX, I'm sure he took into account the limitations.

I'm saying, I think Nolan did it, not that he was forced to do it by anyone else. But hell, none of us really know, unless we ask Nolan himself....

 

[Marvolo]

And again, if so...what does that say about that script they wrote? 400 pages...seriously? What did they think they were going to end up with? Did they decide to get high this time or something?

No, if it was cut down from 2:50 to 2:45, yeah it could be just shaving to make that limit. But 15-20 minutes is still way too much creatively to be dictated by something technical like that. And that would also mean that every single showing is now a version that had to have 15-20 minutes chopped out for the sake of the fewest comparative number of screenings, regardless if it's IMAX.

If a total of 15-20 minutes were cut out of this movie...they HAD to be 15-20 minutes that regardless of format Nolan was creatively comfortable with doing without. Could maybe 2-4 of those minutes been kind of on the fence, then weighed to being cut by the thought of IMAX, maybe. But not the vast majority of it. Otherwise, it's makes Nolan out to suddenly have a stroke of incompetence with this film. And there are some who wonder about that, too. I think he's good enough not to let something so arbitrary affect things so substantially, and that he just felt better about stuff that some don't.

Have you heard what happened to Order of the Phoenix? Order of the Phoenix in its original cut was 3 hours long. That is confirmed. We know the footage that was filmed, multiple set reports during and after production, video, pictures, interviews including Yates himself etc. Its one of the rare events where we could confirm what was there. WB wanted to meet a more theater agreeable runtime so Heyman, Yates, and Day made that happen. They cut around 45 minutes and most of that was from the third act. Entire scenes gone. Day then took many whole shots and left only bits and pieces. They got its runtime down but what was left was a poor form of the film they shot. The film wasnt concieved as it was released. It was meant to be something very different but for the sake of profit, and theater accomodations 45 minute sof footage was cut. This happens but the point is that yes studios and directors will cut their films and change their films in harmful ways to meet a runtime.

Given that TDKR had no 3D IMAX was its one leg up. Its ace in the hole. No IMAX means upset WB. So i have no problem believing that WB would make him ensure it fit in IMAX film runtime restrictions. After all hollywood is a business and WB wants all the extra profit they can get no matter how small. Considering this, what we know of the production, what was cut, odd problems throughout the film editing played a role.

 

[KalMart]

I'm just saying, that I think they cut the script down to fill up as much as they could on screen....during the script stage. So saying there could be "15-20 min left" is irrelevant, as Nolan has even said he times out everything in the script, so he doesn't have to edit so much. And yes, since Nolan knew from the beginning that he was going to be working with IMAX, I'm sure he took into account the limitations.

But he also knew that it wasn't a brick wall, and that they could do an intermission...and that what he did for the same of IMAX would also affect the regular screenings which outnumber by substantially more than 10:1.

II'm saying, I think Nolan did it, not that he was forced to do it by anyone else. But hell, none of us really know, unless we ask Nolan himself....

Which should say that 2:45 was the movie he wanted it to be, and which luckily fit into one IMAX plate. Maybe what he was actually shooting for was 2:30. and it went over by :15.

Again, if Nolan set himself an absolute 2:45 hard line and the movie was comfortably longer but had to be shaved down just to fit it...then creatively, he should be questioned for doing so, and it honestly seems pretty out of character to have him movie ultimately suffer because of it. Hence, it IS more likely a happy coincidence that it fit into 2:45, because if not it would mean that he miscalculated substantially more than he ever has.

 

[KalMart]

Have you heard what happened to Order of the Phoenix? Order of the Phoenix in its original cut was 3 hours long. That is confirmed. We know the footage that was filmed, multiple set reports during and after production, video, pictures, interviews including Yates himself etc. Its one pf the rare events where we can confirm what wad there. WB wanted to meet a more theater agreeable runtime so Heyman, Yates, and Day made that happen. They cut around 45 minutes and most of that was from the third act. Entire scenes gone. Day then took many whole shots and left only bits and pieces. They got its runtime down but what was left was a poor form of the film they shot. The film wasnt concieved as it was released. It was meant to be something very different but for the sake of profit, and theater accomodations 45 minute sof footage was cut. This happens but the point is that yes studios and directors will cut their films and change their films in harmful ways to meet a runtime.

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?

Given that TDKR had no 3D IMAX was its one leg up. Its ace in the hole. No IMAX means upset WB.

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.

So i have no problem believing that WB would make him ensure it fit in IMAX film runtime restrictions. After all hollywood is a business and WB wants all the extra profit they can get no matter how small. Considering this, what we know of the production, what was cut, odd problems throughout the film editing played a role.

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.

 

[Travesty]

Which should say that 2:45 was the movie he wanted it to be, and which luckily fit into one IMAX plate. Maybe what he was actually shooting for was 2:30. and it went over by :15.

I don't see it as luck or a coincidence. I see it as a purposefully planned move. If not, then that's a pretty big coincidence.

Again, if Nolan set himself an absolute 2:45 hard line and the movie was comfortably longer but had to be shaved down just to fit it...then creatively, he should be questioned for doing so, and it honestly seems pretty out of character to have him movie ultimately suffer because of it.

Well, we already know that the script was immensely cut, so why are you surprised elsewhere? I mean, if an artist was asked to paint a 10x10 wall, and he agreed, but actually envisioned something on a 15x15 wall, he's still going to have to paint on the 10x10 wall regardless. It doesn't make him less of an artist, nor should he be questioned for having to paint on a smaller wall than what he hoped for.

 

[KalMart]

I don't see it as luck or a coincidence. I see it as a purposefully planned move. If not, then that's a pretty big coincidence.

You mean a corner that he painted himself into...causing him to drop footage that he normally would've liked to have kept if he didn't set that number in stone.

Well, we already know that the script was immensely cut, so why are you surprised elsewhere? I mean, if an artist was asked to paint a 10x10 wall, and he agreed, but actually envisioned something on a 15x15 wall, he's still going to have to paint on the 10x10 wall regardless. It doesn't make him less of an artist, nor should he be questioned for having to paint on a smaller wall than what he hoped for.

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.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, there were no "massive cuts" to the shooting script. The 400 page script thing is obviously kind of tongue in cheek, and I'm sure the shooting script was nowhere near that, let alone 200 pages.

TDKR having editing issues probably has less to do with IMAX demands or runtime and more to do with the fact that his films just tend to have editing issues. Its not a strong point for this creative team.

 

[Reek]

So say the film was 3h 15 min... causing theaters to switch reels in IMAX... realistically, how long does that take... would it be fast enough for a smooth transition from a 'fade to black' type scene? or would it actually take a couple minutes?

 

[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.

 

[The Guard]

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