Paradoxicalparabola wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 4:46 pm

El Especial wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 3:02 pm

gropercity wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 4:43 am

I'm betting it's over 3 hours. Pattinson said something along the lines of "it's the length of three movies". I'm taking that literally. Also, Nolan was watching Lawrence of Arabia on repeat while writing Tenet. That might be a sign that this movie is his largest and longest.

agree

Do you really think it will be 3 hours? (not asking in a confrontational way). I mean, considering the big budget for Tenet and how people sometimes complain about long films that are not franchise based (they even complain about the length of these sometimes) like endgame, would they want Tenet (being an original) to be 3 hours? Avatar was 2h 42m but the visuals, 3D, etc. Helped a lot.

Tenet would have to be really really amazing to make people want to stay for 3 hours. For such a budget they are probably aiming for a really good box office.

There is absolutely little to no need for a film like this to be 3 hours long, it would be self indulgent, and yes the IMAX palette issue will ensure this film is maximum around 2hr45 mins. 3+ hour movies tend to be softer more character driven films, I think people underestimate how washed out an audience can get with action heavy sequences, films like that need to be paced perfectly and know when to end, especially considering how weighty the themes and concepts in the film are likely to be. 2 and half sounds perfect.

Next trailer in the spring? Probably with Black Widow?

Batman Begins - 140 minutes
The Prestige - 130
The Dark Knight - 152
Inception - 148
The Dark Knight Rises - 164
Interstellar - 169
Dunkirk - 107

I think Tenet will be about 150 minutes long.

Joshua Strong wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 7:11 pm

Next trailer in the spring? Probably with Black Widow?

I'd think debuting with Bond in April is the safer bet, but they'll definitely attach it to black widow regardless.

Sharkboy wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 6:56 pm

There is absolutely little to no need for a film like this to be 3 hours long, it would be self indulgent, and yes the IMAX palette issue will ensure this film is maximum around 2hr45 mins. 3+ hour movies tend to be softer more character driven films, I think people underestimate how washed out an audience can get with action heavy sequences, films like that need to be paced perfectly and know when to end, especially considering how weighty the themes and concepts in the film are likely to be. 2 and half sounds perfect.

That would be the most expected running time for a film like Tenet. Although it could go for 2h 40m and it might still work. Now, if you ask me, I would be happy if the film exceeds expectations and ends up being 3 hours.

Paradoxicalparabola wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 8:35 pm

Sharkboy wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 6:56 pm

There is absolutely little to no need for a film like this to be 3 hours long, it would be self indulgent, and yes the IMAX palette issue will ensure this film is maximum around 2hr45 mins. 3+ hour movies tend to be softer more character driven films, I think people underestimate how washed out an audience can get with action heavy sequences, films like that need to be paced perfectly and know when to end, especially considering how weighty the themes and concepts in the film are likely to be. 2 and half sounds perfect.

That would be the most expected running time for a film like Tenet. Although it could go for 2h 40m and it might still work. Now, if you ask me, I would be happy if the film exceeds expectations and ends up being 3 hours.

i think it depends on how intense the film is, Interstellar had many moments of silence and calm amidst the gargantuan spectacle, and Dunkirk seldom rested from the chaos and tension, thats why it was so much shorter and it worked perfectly, i predict a length of about 2hrs and 30 something minutes.

Paradoxicalparabola wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 1:08 pm

blackColumn wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 6:30 am

masterpiece
1 : a work done with extraordinary skill
especially : a supreme intellectual or artistic achievement



As such, I don't think any film can be a masterpiece in the true sense of the word. Even the wikipedia page notes that, in context of cinema, the term is a loosely used.

Furthermore, because any movie involves many people, including but not limited to cinematographer, director, actors, costume designers, stunt designers/co ordinartors, producer(s), writer(s), composer(s), editor(s) etc; one can't really trace films back to their masterminds.

So it's a combinaton of things. And that's why you have so many categories for academy awards; the most important being best picture itself, not best actor or director.

Yes although I think that a film, not all of them cause nowadays some people overuse the term saying that many are such thing but overreact, can still be considered a masterpiece in a sense. The overall product can be I mean. Can we say it’s a director’s masterpiece? Most of the time no because it’s a collaborative effort and other directors don’t even write their movies but some of them like Stanley Kubrick (or maybe a few other examples) kept their vision throughout therefore almost every piece of a film ended up the way it did due to their continued involvement with the many aspects of a project. In a way it could be said but loosely that it’s a director’s masterpiece if they wrote it as well perhaps. At least when it comes to those terms maybe? Or just “his masterpiece vision”? Lol

Either way, I believe the final product still can.

Yes. Part of the equation is how much control director really has and does that entail, say an actor not shining by virtue of his own performance or there being left no room for improvisation (it is for this reason that Nolan was contemplating shooting Dunkirk without any script, i.e. improvisation on the part of director. Even the unconventional casting decisions that involve putting lesser known faces in lead roles is an effort to maintain the identity as primarily 'a Christopher Nolan film'. It is not a coincidence).

Part of the equation is the commercial nature of the medium itself. This was discussed extensively in r/TrueFilm recently where several cinephiles pointed out that TV is essentially more commercial than cinema because of cliffhangers, advts, exploitability of same settings, characters and actors over and over. Call this gatekeeping but Nolan has expressed already his displeasure with the word 'content' as it puts movies side by side with TV shows.

By the same token then; cinema being a transient medium is not considered art of the same calibre as what you find in the elite institutions (galleries, museums etc).

Nicolaslabra wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2019, 9:25 pm

i think it depends on how intense the film is, Interstellar had many moments of silence and calm amidst the gargantuan spectacle, and Dunkirk seldom rested from the chaos and tension, thats why it was so much shorter and it worked perfectly, i predict a length of about 2hrs and 30 something minutes.

That’s a very plausible length. I would be happy to watch 3 hours if the movie is indeed amazing though; assuming that were to happen.

Since we are talking about whether this film will be spectacular or not, The Making of Tenet by James Mottram announcement is apparently saying already that Tenet is a new masterpiece. How reliable is this coming from that guy? If you know anything about it of course.

This is an exceptional video.
https://youtu.be/a0VniJ0et9Y

blackColumn wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2019, 3:53 am

Yes. Part of the equation is how much control director really has and does that entail, say an actor not shining by virtue of his own performance or there being left no room for improvisation (it is for this reason that Nolan was contemplating shooting Dunkirk without any script, i.e. improvisation on the part of director. Even the unconventional casting decisions that involve putting lesser known faces in lead roles is an effort to maintain the identity as primarily 'a Christopher Nolan film'. It is not a coincidence).

Part of the equation is the commercial nature of the medium itself. This was discussed extensively in r/TrueFilm recently where several cinephiles pointed out that TV is essentially more commercial than cinema because of cliffhangers, advts, exploitability of same settings, characters and actors over and over. Call this gatekeeping but Nolan has expressed already his displeasure with the word 'content' as it puts movies side by side with TV shows.

By the same token then; cinema being a transient medium is not considered art of the same calibre as what you find in the elite institutions (galleries, museums etc).

Interesting.

That may vary between people though as for cinema not being considered art of the same calibre. Over time these perceptions could be very different even for TV shows possibly. We’ll see what happens or others will; who knows. Or it won’t change.