The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 147

[Green Goblin]

Send a PM to one of the admins, like Hunter Rider, and ask for what ever name change you want.

There is a name I would like but I'm saving it for when I get banned.

 

[The Joker]

I didn't know you were planning to get banned lol.

 

[JackWhite]

Am I wrong in thinking this could possibly be released in the near future?

 

[A Necessary Evil]

No, it won't.

 

[kvz5]

TDKR could've easily been a two-partner and I think it would've addressed most of the issues people have with the movie. There's just too much that Nolan wanted to explore (Bruce, the class war, Gotham, Selina, Talia, etc.) that what we got felt like a "bit more than they can chew" thing.

I completely agree, but Rises is very halved in its narrative structure with essentially two instances of Bruce reeling from a defeat and returning as Batman. Both of these have dueling scenarios like the two Bane fights, one where Batman loses and one where he wins, the two kisses with Selina which both have different connotations, and two instances of Bruce figuratively rising from the dead when he escapes the pit and the end of the film where he has escaped with Selina to Florence. The two halves are mirrors of each other while still working within a three-act storytelling structure.

Damn. That's a damn good analysis. I thought about the parallels too (especially the two kisses with Selina and him rising) but you made a much better analysis.

 

[BatLobster]

I get how a two parter could've worked, but I feel the end result would be two less epic movies rather than one huge epic movie. Sure, fans would edit them together as one movie, but the experience of first getting whole story in one uninterrupted sitting would be lost. It takes the magic away a little bit.

I also don't agree with how a two parter would automatically fix people's problems. Not necessarily the case at all. It could've easily introduced a whole new set of problems. The months between release would've been spent theorizing how everything would get paid off in pt. 2 (the way we all theorized in the four years between TDK and TDKR) and the end result could very well end up disappointing and/or too predictable to justify months of waiting. Bruce comes back, defeats Bane, passes the mantle, cements the legend. There's no real cliffhanger in there. Yes, the story has a mirroring/halves thing going on there, but the film works better if you just enjoy it as the final journey of Bruce Wayne. Sticking a cliffhanger in there after Bane breaks Bruce or the siege of Gotham doesn't really work. It's not like it was some heavily guarded prison where we're wondering how Bruce is going to escape the prison. It's a big hole in the ground and there's one way out. We know he has to make the climb, and will make it. It's more about the emotional journey to get there- cliffhangers work better if there's plot to support it.

Having two parts wouldn't have automatically resulted in everyone having a more positive opinion of it. Rather than complaining about one film, the fans would be arguing which part was better, with some saying pt. 2 was too predictable and didn't live up to p1. 1, and others pt. 2 was great but pt. 1 wasn't satisfying enough, it should've been one movie...etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line is...hindsight is 20/20 and fanboys and girls always find stuff to complain about.

 

[The Joker]

Am I wrong in thinking this could possibly be released in the near future?

Probably not, but it would be so amazing if it was.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't think a two-parter was necessary, but I do think they should release a director's cut. Unfortunately it will never happen due to Nolan being against the idea.

 

[Green Goblin]

There was alot of stuff Nolan was trying to squeeze into a 3 hour film.

 

[kvz5]

I get how a two parter could've worked, but I feel the end result would be two less epic movies rather than one huge epic movie. Sure, fans would edit them together as one movie, but the experience of first getting whole story in one uninterrupted sitting would be lost. It takes the magic away a little bit.

I also don't agree with how a two parter would automatically fix people's problems. Not necessarily the case at all. It could've easily introduced a whole new set of problems. The months between release would've been spent theorizing how everything would get paid off in pt. 2 (the way we all theorized in the four years between TDK and TDKR) and the end result could very well end up disappointing and/or too predictable to justify months of waiting. Bruce comes back, defeats Bane, passes the mantle, cements the legend. There's no real cliffhanger in there. Yes, the story has a mirroring/halves thing going on there, but the film works better if you just enjoy it as the final journey of Bruce Wayne. Sticking a cliffhanger in there after Bane breaks Bruce or the siege of Gotham doesn't really work. It's not like it was some heavily guarded prison where we're wondering how Bruce is going to escape the prison. It's a big hole in the ground and there's one way out. We know he has to make the climb, and will make it. It's more about the emotional journey to get there- cliffhangers work better if there's plot to support it.

Having two parts wouldn't have automatically resulted in everyone having a more positive opinion of it. Rather than complaining about one film, the fans would be arguing which part was better, with some saying pt. 2 was too predictable and didn't live up to p1. 1, and others pt. 2 was great but pt. 1 wasn't satisfying enough, it should've been one movie...etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line is...hindsight is 20/20 and fanboys and girls always find stuff to complain about.

I agree and disagree. My biggest problem with TDKR was it was trying to be so many things in so little time. Is it a Batman movie? Is it a war movie? Is it about being a legacy? Is it about war class? The script wasn't tight at all. Nolan bit more than he can chew. Lots of these "plot holes" could've been addressed if there was more time. A lot of the characters (Selina, Gordon, Talia, etc.) were sidelined in favor of giving time to others (Blake, Daggett, etc) so a longer time would've given more breathing room for everyone to have development.

Unless, of course, a 2-parter just means an extra hour more of Blake, Daggett, and Foley then yeah I agree with you. No thanks. I'll take my one part please.

 

[shauner111]

I agree and disagree. My biggest problem with TDKR was it was trying to be so many things in so little time. Is it a Batman movie? Is it a war movie? Is it about being a legacy? Is it about war class? The script wasn't tight at all. Nolan bit more than he can chew. Lots of these "plot holes" could've been addressed if there was more time. A lot of the characters (Selina, Gordon, Talia, etc.) were sidelined in favor of giving time to others (Blake, Daggett, etc) so a longer time would've given more breathing room for everyone to have development.

Unless, of course, a 2-parter just means an extra hour more of Blake, Daggett, and Foley then yeah I agree with you. No thanks. I'll take my one part please.

Why cant it be all of those things at once? A lot of my favorite movies mixed quite a few genres or styles together. TDKR may have been all over the place for some people for me it all fit together very nicely. It was a Batman movie, it was a war epic, a disaster film, etc. But 2 hours and 45 minutes is not "so little time".

But yeah, I prefer it all in one part but just a director's cut. Maybe a 3 hour film would have been really cool.

 

[BatLobster]

Exactly. I love TDKR because it exists rather elegantly as all of those things simultaneously.

Just like TDK is a Batman/Joker film, an examination of post 9/11 fears, a crime saga about a city and a tragedy about a man's fall from grace.

By Nolan biting off more than he can chew (and he did in both cases- both TDK and TDKR are stuffed to the brim with enough plot to supply an entire miniseries), it gives us the audience more to chew on ourselves. Anne Hathaway said it best about Nolan; he creates entire worlds for audiences to get lost in. Even without seeing every little detail, I felt fully immersed in the world of story being weaved by TDKR and fascinated by the world beyond the frame.

 

[georgec]

Amen to the two posts above.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

Amen to the two posts above.

This.

 

[Green Goblin]

Did a director's cut exist? What would the additional 15 minutes include?

 

[James.B]

Did a director's cut exist? What would the additional 15 minutes include?

Yes, the cut we have now is the Director's cut.

 

[Green Goblin]

Yes, the cut we have now is the Director's cut.

I heard that there was like some 3 1/2 hour long extravaganza that Nolan made but had to get cut back. Part of it was an extended look at Bane's origin or rise to power.

 

[Shikamaru]

There is apparently 1 hour and 20 minutes that were cut from the film. Add that in to the theatrical cut and you would get about 4 hours of footage. I would say that is a realistic amount considering all the subplots and character arcs/studies happening in the film.

 

[georgec]

I would love to see that extra footage.

 

[BatLobster]

There is apparently 1 hour and 20 minutes that were cut from the film. Add that in to the theatrical cut and you would get about 4 hours of footage. I would say that is a realistic amount considering all the subplots and character arcs/studies happening in the film.

Source? I don't believe that.

The shooting script is 165 pages. General screenwriting rule is 1 page= 1 minute of screentime so it works out pretty much perfectly.

No way did Nolan chop down a 4 hour movie into a 2:45 movie. A 3 hour movie down to a 2:45 movie, possibly. He's not that wasteful a filmmaker to shoot an extra 1 hour and 20 minutes that wasn't going to make the cut. That's why every movie he makes finishes ahead of schedule and under budget.

I'm sure there was a very long assembly cut with all the action they shot, but that's about it. I highly doubt there are all these secret scenes that weren't in the script with actual character beats.

 

[James.B]

Empire asked Nolan if the 4 hour cut was true in a interview. He said it was just another "crazy thing" the internet made up and that he did all the cutting in the script stage, so a lot wasn't even filmed.

He also said he told the studio how long the film will be 2 years before release.

 

[BatLobster]

Yup. The major cutting was done at the script stage. Nolan would not be such a studio darling if he carelessly wasted away budgets like that. The 4 hour cut is nothing but an internet myth, started by MTV no less.

 

[shauner111]

There's no chance in hell of a 4 hour movie. The script was huge not the film. It could have went an extra 10, 15, heck...MAYBE 20 more minutes of film. But that's it. Even 20 could be pushing it.

Exactly. I love TDKR because it exists rather elegantly as all of those things simultaneously.

Just like TDK is a Batman/Joker film, an examination of post 9/11 fears, a crime saga about a city and a tragedy about a man's fall from grace.

By Nolan biting off more than he can chew (and he did in both cases- both TDK and TDKR are stuffed to the brim with enough plot to supply an entire miniseries), it gives us the audience more to chew on ourselves. Anne Hathaway said it best about Nolan; he creates entire worlds for audiences to get lost in. Even without seeing every little detail, I felt fully immersed in the world of story being weaved by TDKR and fascinated by the world beyond the frame.

Exactly. Look at Inception. It's an exotic heist film, a Bond action movie in a winter setting, a psychological journey of a man trying to break free of his past regrets, and on the surface a fantasy film about dream-sharing. Yet it mixes all these elements & genres together in a way that works.

Nolan's not the only one who does this. He took some different styles and mixed them together, just as he did with the previous 2 Batman movies. Only he went that extra mile, like he did with Inception.

 

[Green Goblin]

I wish there was a nod to the Joker. I know that it was out of respect for Ledger but is it not more respectful to acknowledge his wonderful work?

 

[BatLobster]

Nah. Silence is more respectful.