Would you have wanted a longer film, at the expense of IMAX?

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 13377
Joined: August 2011
Avatar Korra wrote:
RyanRises wrote:Threads talking about a different movie than the one we got.
What else is there to discuss? Do you only want threads where we all just endlessly praise the movie or something? Stop posting spam if you aren't going to contribute at all.
Yes. It's an interesting question. But why can't it be discussed in the extended cut thread? If we can find it.

Posts: 470
Joined: March 2011
That begs the question would a longer film have been a better film. Also, I'm sure Nolan knew the limitations of IMAX going in -- if the length was a concern, he probably wouldn't have gone that route. Also, we never got an extended cut. If there'' a 'better' version of the film out there, Nolan never cared to released it (at least not as of yet).

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Yes, absolutely. As much as I love IMAX, the limited runtime of 165 minutes ultimately hindered the pace, editing, and flow of the film. Some characters and relationships needed a lot more development. Certain scenes needed more time to breathe. I honestly wouldn't have minded a TDKR that was as long as the 2005 King Kong if it meant for a better flowing story and more fleshed out characters.
Vader182 wrote:I actually think this is a valid and vital criticism of the film- especially in the context of Lee Smith's comments on the movie. It was basically an admittance they made the shortest film instead of the best one. That's kind of a huge fucking problem in my opinion.
Exactly.
stanley wrote:That begs the question would a longer film have been a better film. Also, I'm sure Nolan knew the limitations of IMAX going in -- if the length was a concern, he probably wouldn't have gone that route. Also, we never got an extended cut. If there'' a 'better' version of the film out there, Nolan never cared to released it (at least not as of yet).
I do think that longer would have been better. And Nolan doesn't believe in deleted scenes or extended cuts so that's a moot point. Also keep in mind that Hathaway's stunt double destroyed an IMAX camera with the Batpod, so it's entirely possible that entire footage was literally destroyed.
Last edited by nolangoatdirector on February 8th, 2013, 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
stanley wrote:That begs the question would a longer film have been a better film. Also, I'm sure Nolan knew the limitations of IMAX going in -- if the length was a concern, he probably wouldn't have gone that route. Also, we never got an extended cut. If there'' a 'better' version of the film out there, Nolan never cared to released it (at least not as of yet).
Essentially, yeah.

Nolan knew he was going to shoot on IMAX prior to even penning the first draft (to rival the scale of TDK, visually, he had to). Ergo, he knew he had a time limitation before forming the story. It was an obvious consideration, one that he was very conscious of while crafting the film. I think if any criticisms of the film's pacing (I have none) or shot length exist, they should stand on that merit alone, without IMAX being used as a scapegoat. It's not as if Nolan realized after filming during editing that "oh shit, IMAX has a time limit"? He knew what he was doing.

Anyway, since TDK, IMAX has been a vital and, in my opinion, prerequisite to the franchise. Fans would be up in arms (I know I would have been), if TDKR wasn't shot or released in IMAX. It simply wouldn't be capable of rivaling the spectacle or awe of it's predecessor, which is an enormous flaw and inherently disappointing. Especially considering how un-spectacular the 35mm scenes in TDKR look.

Posts: 18808
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Here's Smith's quote:
Timing was a big factor for the last instalment of The Dark Knight Trilogy. “The Dark Knight Rises’ biggest challenge was getting it down to two hours and forty-five minutes because it was an epic shoot. Unless we were really regimented that film could have run super long. Some people might say that it runs too long now. We don’t think so. That’s as tight as we could possibly get it.
To clarify, "Tight" is an expression used throughout the interview indicating making it as short as possible, not in the 'yah bro dats tight' sense. He states they made an active effort to make sure they could keep the run time as low as possible throughout the shoot, using as little as possible to communicate what has to be. In my opinion, the film ultimately suffers for it. It is difficult to pinpoint what decisions were made in pre-production to cut down the running time, what were made during shooting, and in post, but the final battle lost a lot of the actual 'battle' element of it, including two big stunts, the actual fighting we see a second of prior to Foley's death. Along with Gordon's early scene with Bruce, these two exemptions were clearly intended to be lengthened and more dramatic, especially given the marketing and trailers for the movie. Gordon meeting Bruce has nearly every shot cut as short as possible across the whole scene and without many shots at all- this runs contrary to almost every other serious dialogue scene in any of his films, which he typically devotes more time to developing than even the action scenes.

The movie could've used another fifteen minutes to allow some key scenes to breathe, and fix any awkward cuts running through the film, of which there are many. The editing issues don't bother me greatly while watching, namely because the density of stuff he throws at you is unlike any of his other films on a plot/theme/character/visual/scale level. Still, if I sit back and look at the film, many of these issues become evident, and it would've been a more cohesive otherwise. It's a relatively minor issue in the scheme of how much Rises gets right, but it makes it a more flawed film than most of his others, I think.


-Vader

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
Vader182 wrote:Here's Smith's quote:
Timing was a big factor for the last instalment of The Dark Knight Trilogy. “The Dark Knight Rises’ biggest challenge was getting it down to two hours and forty-five minutes because it was an epic shoot. Unless we were really regimented that film could have run super long. Some people might say that it runs too long now. We don’t think so. That’s as tight as we could possibly get it.
To clarify, "Tight" is an expression used throughout the interview indicating making it as short as possible, not in the 'yah bro dats tight' sense. He states they made an active effort to make sure they could keep the run time as low as possible throughout the shoot, using as little as possible to communicate what has to be. In my opinion, the film ultimately suffers for it. It is difficult to pinpoint what decisions were made in pre-production to cut down the running time, what were made during shooting, and in post, but the final battle lost a lot of the actual 'battle' element of it, including two big stunts, the actual fighting we see a second of prior to Foley's death. Along with Gordon's early scene with Bruce, these two exemptions were clearly intended to be lengthened and more dramatic, especially given the marketing and trailers for the movie. Gordon meeting Bruce has nearly every shot cut as short as possible across the whole scene and without many shots at all- this runs contrary to almost every other serious dialogue scene in any of his films, which he typically devotes more time to developing than even the action scenes.

The movie could've used another fifteen minutes to allow some key scenes to breathe, and fix any awkward cuts running through the film, of which there are many. The editing issues don't bother me greatly while watching, namely because the density of stuff he throws at you is unlike any of his other films on a plot/theme/character/visual/scale level. Still, if I sit back and look at the film, many of these issues become evident, and it would've been a more cohesive otherwise. It's a relatively minor issue in the scheme of how much Rises gets right, but it makes it a more flawed film than most of his others, I think.


-Vader
Chris struggles with letting his films "breathe" too much anyway. Inception being a perfect example. If anything a time requirement helped him keep a brisk pace, which is how the film is cut in the first place. Apart from particular sequences that have a "long" time devotion for various reasons, the film rarely "stops". It's always in motion. I don't think that's a bad thing, because it keeps the viewer active and constantly evaluating what's being put in front of them. At least for me, it never dipped into the place of feeling unevenly paced, either. Deleted sequences from trailers and whatnot literally occur on every blockbuster film, it's hardly a concerning issue. Inception on the other hand... Easily the most painful dramatic scenes to sit through in any of Nolan's films; tedious, overwritten, and they sit way too long.

And, as I'm sure you know, an editors goal on every action film is to get it as "tight" as possible, IMAX being irrelevant. Prometheus being a key example; Ridley wanted that movie right around 2 hours and he'd constantly force his editor to go over and over it, shaving minutes off here and there as much as possible without harming bound motifs. If you watch the behind the scenes footage, keeping it as "tight" as possible is literally one of the most repeated phrases and dominating goals. That film could have, for it's own logic's sake, used a few more minutes, though. :lol:

Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Crazy Eight wrote:Chris struggles with letting his films "breathe" too much anyway. Inception being a perfect example. If anything a time requirement helped him keep a brisk pace, which is how the film is cut in the first place. Apart from particular sequences that have a "long" time devotion for various reasons, the film rarely "stops". It's always in motion. I don't think that's a bad thing, because it keeps the viewer active and constantly evaluating what's being put in front of them. At least for me, it never dipped into the place of feeling unevenly paced, either. Deleted sequences from trailers and whatnot literally occur on every blockbuster film, it's hardly a concerning issue. Inception on the other hand... Easily the most painful dramatic scenes to sit through in any of Nolan's films; tedious, overwritten, and they sit way too long.

And, as I'm sure you know, an editors goal on every action film is to get it as "tight" as possible, IMAX being irrelevant. Prometheus being a key example; Ridley wanted that movie right around 2 hours and he'd constantly force his editor to go over and over it, shaving minutes off here and there as much as possible without harming bound motifs. If you watch the behind the scenes footage, keeping it as "tight" as possible is literally one of the most repeated phrases and dominating goals. That film could have, for it's own logic's sake, used a few more minutes, though. :lol:
Well I totally disagree with what you said about Inception. Sure it never really stops to breathe, but I didn't think that any of the scenes were edited poorly. And TDKR required a different kind of "tight" - you said that editors in general are supposed to get movies to be tight as possible anyway, which is generally true. However, TDKR, due to IMAX, was operating under a TIME LIMIT. Footage literally had to be disposed of in order to get the film under 165 minutes. So the word "tight" as concerned with TDKR literally means "edit and cut whatever is necessary to get this sucker under 165 minutes". Whereas usually editors edit more so for the sake of efficiency and flow.

Posts: 18808
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
You can't use Inception as the crux of your example proving your point when the majority of people felt the oscars completely fucked Smith over with the oscar snub.

The goal of any film should be to release the perfect cut, not the shortest. Lee mentioning this in this particular implies it was a particular effort to meet the IMAX running time, something they didn't worry about with the previous films. They had a general running time and had plenty of leeway in either direction to make the film as cohesive as possible. No such leeway could exist here considering they had a literal and creative ceiling at two hours and forty-five minutes.

The most consistent complaint by hardcore fans and dissenters alike has been the awkward editing. Considering they couldn't make the movie longer even if they wanted to, which, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in thinking they wouldn't have allowed editing that, although not to you, to most, would appear awkward.

-Vader

Posts: 8049
Joined: October 2011
Location: Chungking Mansions
I could have watched this movie for a very, very, very long time.

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
Vader182 wrote:You can't use Inception as the crux of your example proving your point when the majority of people felt the oscars completely fucked Smith over with the oscar snub.

The goal of any film should be to release the perfect cut, not the shortest. Lee mentioning this in this particular implies it was a particular effort to meet the IMAX running time, something they didn't worry about with the previous films. They had a general running time and had plenty of leeway in either direction to make the film as cohesive as possible. No such leeway could exist here considering they had a literal and creative ceiling at two hours and forty-five minutes.

The most consistent complaint by hardcore fans and dissenters alike has been the awkward editing. Considering they couldn't make the movie longer even if they wanted to, which, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in thinking they wouldn't have allowed editing that, although not to you, to most, would appear awkward.

-Vader
Since when has how the majority deems a film's success in a specific aspect made said aspect un-criticizable? Inception's largest and most frequent criticism is it's clunky exposition and insanely slow first hour (roughly, minus the opening). It's so awful that everyone I know who was an enormous fan of it when it came out in theaters literally can't sit through it anymore, and I'm close to that point myself. I never specified who I put the blame on, and it's obviously not Lee. He doesn't get to decide which scenes make it into the film, or how much dialoge from them makes it. The exposition lasted far too long scene-to-scene and there were far too many scenes dedicated to it. This quite literally slowed the film down and let the scenario's and characters breathe, and it happened insanely frequently up until the last half hour. TDKR is the exact opposite. It's always in motion, which is the whole reason we have this "pedal faster" quote going around. It throws an insane amount of information at you, and it does it quickly but effectively, which is the reason so many people missed so many obvious points in the film. It forces the viewer to actually pay attention for nearly 3 hours. For a film analysis guy, you should love this, since it's literally the perfect film to dissect. Establishing shots, heli shots, length of stuff like that, whatever, that's up to you, I won't argue otherwise since it's wholly subjective. I'm not saying I wouldn't have loved another 15 minutes, but I don't think it would have necessarily made the film -better-.

And TDK had the same time limit as TDKR...

Post Reply