On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
Runtime announced on imdb
that's rounding upjake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
The wrong way.#1fan wrote:that's rounding upjake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
Posts: 2512
Joined:
November 2009
Do you have the password of that site?jake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
I do but I don't want to give it out to everyone.BatMotor wrote:Do you have the password of that site?jake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
He likes being the go-to guy.jake088800 wrote:I do but I don't want to give it out to everyone.BatMotor wrote:Do you have the password of that site?jake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
Posts: 3669
Joined:
June 2009
jake088800 wrote:On the WB exhibitors site it says the running time is 150 mins, not 142.
Well i'd say that's the most reliable source so far.
Posts: 111
Joined:
May 2010
150 v 142... perhaps WB's count includes the final credits and the imdb not?
I think that's the reason. The Dark Knight runtime was advertised 142 min in the cinema and on the DVD it told me 153 min so someone did a mistake ( bad stopwatch ) or they just counted in different wayspeloto wrote:150 v 142... perhaps WB's count includes the final credits and the imdb not?
But... are 8 mins so important? Well, maybe yes, when we are talking about Nolan film
Over two and a half hours seems good to me