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.
User avatar
Posts: 19621
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
It's Shakespearian irony. Bane was specifically emphasized to deal out death in a nonchalant unapologetic manner, discarded with ease and instantly forgotten. It's not about what you want, it's about what carries the most weight. Bane was defeated in the same manner in which he dealt defeat to those around him. It's fitting.

Again, we know he has the means to get back into the city, as established in great detail above. While you can wish you saw it, ultimately, it wouldn't have had a real place in the film. Bruce showing seemingly out of nowhere is necessary for the final 45 minutes to function dramatically. He's back, he has newfound purpose, clarity, and insight into himself, the people around him, and how to save his beloved city. A 'break into Gotham' sequence, or almost any mention of how that happened, would've detracted from the purity of establishing those qualities around Bruce's return to the city. No matter how effective it was executed into the film, it would've lessened the potency and focus on those completely key concepts going into the final stretch of the film.

Additionally, the public surely envisions Batman returned once and either was defeated by Bane in the takeover, or, gave up. A powerful symbol across the city ignited on a key landmark the whole city can see communicates not only his return in as wide and powerful a way, but it does this with the chief iconography of the character, dramatically beginning his 'rise' in Gotham in a symbolic way.

-Vader

Posts: 91
Joined: July 2012
Yes, and while your explanations make sense, that doesn't mean I still have to like it. Again, I said that in my opinion, I didn't like Bane's death, and in my opinion, I wished they showed a little more on how Bruce returned. That's why those are negative parts FOR ME.

User avatar
Posts: 15474
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
I'm not sure how nobody ever considered the following:

Christian Bale plays Batman, who after hanging on a rope, side by side with 'criminals', is ultimately healed from his wounds and able to rise out of a cave underground, upon which he miraculously...

chose first to appear to women (or a woman) and to commission them (her) to proclaim this most important fact to the disciples, including Peter and the other apostles;
...and that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene who
was the first person to see Jesus after his Resurrection,[3] according to both John 20 and Mark 16:9. She was there at the "beginning of a movement that was going to transform the West".[5] Because of her pivotal role in the Resurrection, she became known as "the apostle to the apostles".[6]
Few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene. From the sixth century until fairly late in the twentieth century, she has been portrayed as a prostitute. No where in the New Testament is she described in any but the most positive terms. Her reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but from a now-declared misstatement in a sixth-century sermon by Pope Gregory the Great.[6]
Jesus cleansed her of "seven demons"

"When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath."[23]
And all that blabla.

Ofc all rest mismatches but this is sufficiently intriguing.

User avatar
Posts: 19621
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
That's completely fine and you're entitled to it, but things like this necessarily should influence one's own visceral reaction. Meaning, if I the things I typed above about the fire hadn't occurred to me while watching the film, I may have taken a step back and thought "well that's a bit silly, why'd he take the time to do that!" and indeed, that was the reaction of a lot of people. However, because those things did occur to me, at least in the back of my mind, while I was experiencing these things unfold, the importance and drama of the thing became powerful and invigorating for me as a viewer. So, by typing these things out and giving what I felt was the meaning and purpose behind them, I don't hope to prove you 'wrong' about what you did or didn't like That's impossible. What I do however hope to do is allow these scenes to resonate with you in a way they may not have had these meanings remained unexplored to you. This is the primary reason I encourage surveying analysis about any film you find yourself interested in- it should, with some luck, widen and empower your relationship with the film in a more lasting way.

-Vader

Posts: 91
Joined: July 2012
Vader182 wrote:That's completely fine and you're entitled to it, but things like this necessarily should influence one's own visceral reaction. Meaning, if I the things I typed above about the fire hadn't occurred to me while watching the film, I may have taken a step back and thought "well that's a bit silly, why'd he take the time to do that!" and indeed, that was the reaction of a lot of people. However, because those things did occur to me, at least in the back of my mind, while I was experiencing these things unfold, the importance and drama of the thing became powerful and invigorating for me as a viewer. So, by typing these things out and giving what I felt was the meaning and purpose behind them, I don't hope to prove you 'wrong' about what you did or didn't like That's impossible. What I do however hope to do is allow these scenes to resonate with you in a way they may not have had these meanings remained unexplored to you. This is the primary reason I encourage surveying analysis about any film you find yourself interested in- it should, with some luck, widen and empower your relationship with the film in a more lasting way.

-Vader
I agree, your posts and others from a different forum were able to convince me otherwise on how bad these problems really were. I no longer think Bruce getting back to Gotham is as big of a flaw, but I still don't like how it was executed on film that much. Likewise, people analyzing the film had helped convince me of problems I originally had not being problems at all, such as the inclusion of Talia.

However, the original point of my post was saying that I thought the few problems I had in TDK aren't as bad as the few problems I had in TDKR. Just like you were able to explain those scenes to me, I'm sure someone can give justifiable reasons on the Joker leaving the party.

Posts: 4377
Joined: January 2012
Avatar Korra wrote:Yes, and while your explanations make sense, that doesn't mean I still have to like it. Again, I said that in my opinion, I didn't like Bane's death, and in my opinion, I wished they showed a little more on how Bruce returned. That's why those are negative parts FOR ME.
Really? Those are enough to make people hate the film? BB had scarecrow being tasered by Rachel and I heard lots of complaints back then and now that has died down. When people are finally finished huffing and puffing and kicking the s**t out of this movie it might occur to them that it was not such a big deal after all. The focus of the films is Bruce wayne. The villains are secondary and don't need to be there for more than absolutely necessary.

can't people enjoy the overall experience? Oh no, I forgot everyone has a cellphone that allows them to freeze frame everything and nitpick it to death....

User avatar
Posts: 19621
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
She just said she loves the film?

-Vader

Posts: 91
Joined: July 2012
Batfan175 wrote:
Avatar Korra wrote:Yes, and while your explanations make sense, that doesn't mean I still have to like it. Again, I said that in my opinion, I didn't like Bane's death, and in my opinion, I wished they showed a little more on how Bruce returned. That's why those are negative parts FOR ME.
Really? Those are enough to make people hate the film? BB had scarecrow being tasered by Rachel and I heard lots of complaints back then and now that has died down. When people are finally finished huffing and puffing and kicking the s**t out of this movie it might occur to them that it was not such a big deal after all. The focus of the films is Bruce wayne. The villains are secondary and don't need to be there for more than absolutely necessary.

can't people enjoy the overall experience? Oh no, I forgot everyone has a cellphone that allows them to freeze frame everything and nitpick it to death....
Lol, this post represents the logic most of the people in this forum have. If you don't like a couple parts of the movie it means you are a blind hater and nitpicker.

User avatar
Posts: 4317
Joined: June 2012
Location: SUH-waaaaannn-SEA
A longer or shorter film, IMAX or Xmm - that's not really a concern of mine. I heard that the original script was 4hrs+ long, so it would have been interesting to see what was cut out, but Rises as it turned out to be carried the risk of bloat. A film's length and format is irrelevant as long as I am engaged by it.

User avatar
Posts: 2095
Joined: April 2010
MikaHaeli8 wrote:A longer or shorter film, IMAX or Xmm - that's not really a concern of mine. I heard that the original script was 4hrs+ long, so it would have been interesting to see what was cut out, but Rises as it turned out to be carried the risk of bloat. A film's length and format is irrelevant as long as I am engaged by it.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Mika

Assuming a longer film would have made TDKR a better film... Short answer... YES.

I'm always up for a longer film. I really dislike when film critics pass length off as a legitimate criticism when it rarely is. Sometimes there is excess stuff in a film that could be cut out. But most of the time it just depends on how interested you are in a film. I don't remember hearing many complaints about Django being too long. But I heard a thousand complaints about TDKR being too long. And ironically a lot of us here I think agree that TDKR should be longer.

Was Lawrence of Arabia too long, Gone with the Wind, The Godfather? Some people apparently have trouble with the first hour of Inception. I own that movie and have watched it many times. I find the whole film engaging beginning to end. On the other hand I can't really watch Kubrick's 2001 very often at all and yet I thoroughly enjoy Spartacus and it's longer. What blows my mind about TDK and TDKR is they're both the shortest long movies I've ever seen. First time I watched them both I felt like 10 minutes passed. No joke. And I'm still so engaged in them they fly by for me after at least a hundred views on TDK and dozens on Rises they still fly by.

To some degree, I kinda felt like TDKR had to be shot in IMAX following TDK. I love Nolan but he's not perfect. It's possible they were over ambitious thinking they could fit that epic shoot into 2:45. Regardless I think they did a fine job of it. But the studio sure as hell wouldn't have let Nolan shoot in neither 3D or IMAX. There was no way they weren't going to cash in on one of those after the success of The Dark Knight. And I sure as hell would take the Imax/film version we have now over a longer version shot on video in 3D.

Bottom line I'm happy with TDKR as is. But back to my original short answer if you could promise me that a longer version not shot in IMAX would be a better film. Then of course the answer is YES. Give me the longer better film dammit!

Post Reply