Movies The Batman (04 March 2022) - Information Thread, update: deleted Arkham Asylum scene released

[Guest]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Those with bladder/urinary tract issues?

Like, literally any woman after she’s had children. 

[Kal-El814]

33 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

But people binge hours more of television straight through. It doesn't have to be uninterrupted, if you have to go to the bathroom really quick just . . . go. How long can going to the bathroom take? Quick piss, back in the movie, you missed a scene of Batman like, walking for 20 seconds in a scene or something. I dunno, it's always this enormous issue when I've seen people not get off the couch for 4 hours binging something at home on TV.

 

Like, what, Matt Reeves or Martin Scorsese should make shorter movies just because of people needing 1 minute bathroom break during the film? I dunno, I'd rather make the audience suffer the bathroom break and miss 1 minute of something than compromise my movie by being a half hour or more shorter because of "bathroom breaks". And this is only in theaters, movies live at home, where you can just pause.  

 

Television shows have natural breaks and those are meaningful. I’d wager people spend a lot more time in front of something like Skyrim or Breath of the Wild than they do a Mario game, because the later has convenient stopping points. A 100 page chapter in a book is going to feel like an eternity compared to four, twenty-five page chapters.

 

And no, it’s not because people need to take a bathroom break or to grab a soda or whatever, it’s just that there’s a limit to how much time people can sit on their ass without something to break things up, even if it’s short and esoteric. If Netflix released the next season of Stranger Things as a 9 hour movie, that would be deeply stupid even if some people will binge all the episodes on the day it comes out and the content is never intended to be seen in theaters.

 

I don’t think it’s a strange to note that sitting on your ass and doing something passively for hours is undesirable for a lot of people. It’s part of why there’s recess at school, why it’s helpful to get up and stretch your legs at work, why movies and plays used to have intermissions, etc.

 

EDIT - and yes, before @sblfilms @‘s me, I know old, long movies needed time to switch reels.

[Greatoneshere]

36 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I also think there is a pretty notable difference between binging shows that have many natural breakpoints in the 30-50 minute range from a feature film with no breakpoints between, even just in terms of the psychology of it.

 

Agreed, but then people need to get over it. Miss some of the movie, not really a big deal I think. I personally try to time mine when it's clear I won't miss too much if I'm gone for 45 seconds or so, like an exposition dialogue scene or a silent long shot of something or other. Not saying it's perfect or convenient, but I don't want movies to be shorter because of it. Tell the story you want to tell. 

 

32 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Those with bladder/urinary tract issues?

 

I'm obviously speaking generally. I mean, I go to the bathroom pretty frequently. I just get up, go quickly, come back to the movie. It's really no big deal, longer movies never bothered me. 

[Greatoneshere]

19 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Television shows have natural breaks and those are meaningful. I’d wager people spend a lot more time in front of something like Skyrim or Breath of the Wild than they do a Mario game, because the later has convenient stopping points. A 100 page chapter in a book is going to feel like an eternity compared to four, twenty-five page chapters.

 

And no, it’s not because people need to take a bathroom break or to grab a soda or whatever, it’s just that there’s a limit to how much time people can sit on their ass without something to break things up, even if it’s short and esoteric. If Netflix released the next season of Stranger Things as a 9 hour movie, that would be deeply stupid even if some people will binge all the episodes on the day it comes out and the content is never intended to be seen in theaters.

 

I don’t think it’s a strange to note that sitting on your ass and doing something passively for hours is undesirable for a lot of people. It’s part of why there’s recess at school, why it’s helpful to get up and stretch your legs at work, why movies and plays used to have intermissions, etc.

 

 

We're talking about a 3 hour film, it's not interminable amount of time or something to me. If this is true of people, all I'd say is that's a shame. 

[SoberChef]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Or miss like 1 minute of the film and run off to the bathroom? A film shouldn't compromise its runtime because people refuse a 30 second bathroom break. It's okay for a person to miss 30 seconds of a film when the film is nearly 3 hours, I'm sure everyone will still be able to follow the movie.  

 

Also adults can't hold it in for 3 hours? Yikes (saying this in general, not to you SoberChef).

I'M OLD & FEEBLE YOU AGEIST BASTARD!

[Mercury33]

Without reading the last few posts. Is the ADD generation on this board complaining about run times again?

[skillzdadirecta]

As long as a movie MOVES it doesn't matter how long it is. I've sat in three hour movies that didn't feel that long at all and 90 minute movies that felt like a fucking eternity. It all comes down to execution. Something a lot of folks on this board have no idea about because people tend to like or dislike the idea of a movie and have their minds made up months before the movie even comes out. Some of you guys should just give your "reviews" now 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I also think there is a pretty notable difference between binging shows that have many natural breakpoints in the 30-50 minute range from a feature film with no breakpoints between, even just in terms of the psychology of it.

It's why most screenwriters are taught to keep their screenplay lengths to between 100 and 120 pages depending on the kind of movie. You're asking a LOT of people to sit in the dark for three hours with no breaks. If you're going to do so it better be a damn good reason for it and your movie had better be worth it.

[Keyser_Soze]

You guys need to watch some Bollywood movies that even go past the 3 hour mark.

[Brick]

I like long movies.

 

I wonder if it already being almost 3 hours means that there really isn't an R-rated Director's Cut after all. Otherwise it  would probably be like 3 and a half hours unless whatever got cut to make it PG-13 was only a few frames of blood, like someone gets slashed, but it cuts away quickly like how The Dark Knight did that (Joker killing Gambol being a good example).

[TheLeon]

When I know a movie is going to be extra long, I’ll pick a seat in a back corner, so I can get up and move around a little bit without bothering anyone. I just can’t handle sitting for 2.5+ hours straight. And it’s not an ADHD thing, it’s a spine thing. 

[skillzdadirecta]

7 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

You guys need to watch some Bollywood movies that even go past the 3 hour mark.

no. we don't. 

[Kamusha]

Weird that we're knowledgeably enough on ADD/ADHD to know it is a diagnosable condition yet we talk about the inability to sit still for multiple hours like it's a moral failure or something. This attitude is inconsistent of science. I am an adult with ADHD who has trouble sitting still for three continuous hours, depending on the day or other life circumstances. That does not make me a less serious partaker of the arts. The conversations around attention span issues are really weird. We should treat attention span more as an ability than as sign of intelligence or morality. Attacking people for attention span isn't all that different from attacking someone for being hard of hearing.

 

With that said, I am very Batman skeptical but hating a movie's runtime before I even see it is dumb. But at the same time I am allowed to not feel like sitting for three hours for a movie I was only partially interested in seeing in the first place. You shouldn't judge a movie based off its runtime, but it's also okay to have a preference for how long you sit in a theater for.

 

And why not just miss a minute of the movie? Because movie storytelling is so dense, especially modern storytelling, that's it's designed that every minute feels meaningful and important. If there's a three hour movie that you feel like you feel leave for a couple minutes at any time and not miss much... maybe it doesn't need to be three hours. 

[Mercury33]

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

The reference of the ADD generation is obviously not an implication that everyone literally has ADD. Nor a commentary on people who were actually correctly diagnosed with it. 

[Keyser_Soze]

27 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

The reference of the ADD generation is obviously not an implication that everyone literally has ADD. Nor a commentary on people who were actually correctly diagnosed with it. 

 

You should call it ADHD as I mistakenly said ADD one time and someone was upset.

[Mercury33]

14 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

You should call it ADHD as I mistakenly said ADD one time and someone was upset.

I was part of the OG wave getting Ritalin back in the day. There was still a difference back then. ADD if you can’t pay attention/figit. ADHD if you were super hyper too. I just “had” ADD so it’s habit for me to still refer to it that way. 

[Kal-El814]

18 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

Without reading the last few posts. Is the ADD generation on this board complaining about run times again?

 

I'm 41 and am one of the least ADHD / most neurotypical people I know, so... no?  I can sit and paint a miniature for 5 hours without realizing anywhere near that amount of time has passed. Even if you have a 3 hour movie that moves, isn't padded or plodding, 3 hours is a long time to focus on one thing passively.

 

It's like none of you have gotten an invite to a 90 minute meeting, let alone a three hour one, even if the topic is interesting / relevant, you like the presenter, and you're being paid to show up. 

[SimpleG]

6 hours ago, Komusha said:

Weird that we're knowledgeably enough on ADD/ADHD to know it is a diagnosable condition yet we talk about the inability to sit still for multiple hours like it's a moral failure or something. This attitude is inconsistent of science. I am an adult with ADHD who has trouble sitting still for three continuous hours, depending on the day or other life circumstances. That does not make me a less serious partaker of the arts. The conversations around attention span issues are really weird. We should treat attention span more as an ability than as sign of intelligence or morality. Attacking people for attention span isn't all that different from attacking someone for being hard of hearing.

 

With that said, I am very Batman skeptical but hating a movie's runtime before I even see it is dumb. But at the same time I am allowed to not feel like sitting for three hours for a movie I was only partially interested in seeing in the first place. You shouldn't judge a movie based off its runtime, but it's also okay to have a preference for how long you sit in a theater for.

 

And why not just miss a minute of the movie? Because movie storytelling is so dense, especially modern storytelling, that's it's designed that every minute feels meaningful and important. If there's a three hour movie that you feel like you feel leave for a couple minutes at any time and not miss much... maybe it doesn't need to be three hours. 

A intelligent and reasonable post

This cant be the D1P forum I know

[Mercury33]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

I'm 41 and am one of the least ADHD / most neurotypical people I know, so... no?  I can sit and paint a miniature for 5 hours without realizing anywhere near that amount of time has passed. Even if you have a 3 hour movie that moves, isn't padded or plodding, 3 hours is a long time to focus on one thing passively.

 

It's like none of you have gotten an invite to a 90 minute meeting, let alone a three hour one, even if the topic is interesting / relevant, you like the presenter, and you're being paid to show up. 

You’re not really comparing sitting through a work meeting(no matter how interesting) to sitting through a movie in a giant recliner with snacks…are you? 😝

[Kal-El814]

2 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

You’re not really comparing sitting through a work meeting(no matter how interesting) to sitting through a movie in a giant recliner with snacks…are you? 😝

Three hours is an objectively long time to sit and listen to / watch anything and I will die on this hill

[Ghost_MH]

21 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Like, literally any woman after she’s had children. 

 

Luckily there are databases for this that have got folks covered. It was very handy when my wife my pregnant.

 

Main - RunPee

RUNPEE.COM

---

As seen on Previous Next Download and use for free Popular Posts: Movie Review – Reminiscence This movie had the potential to be great, yet it… Read More August 20, 2021 Movie Review – Cruella Let me start...

 

[Greatoneshere]

From the start, I have said no one is saying sit still for 3 hours. I'm saying, get up and leave for a minute if you have to. It's no big deal, but don't shorten the film because of it.

[skillzdadirecta]

Robert Pattinson Explains His Take on Batman's No-Kill Rule

SCREENRANT.COM

---

Pattinson's shares his thoughts on Batman & killing.

 

Quote

"There is this rule with Batman: he must not kill. It can be interpreted in two ways. Either he only wants to inflict the appropriate punishment, or he wants to kill and his self-control prevents him from doing so.

"I imagined it that way from the rehearsal of the first fight, I thought it was funnier: something in him just wanted to slit the guy's throat! I told myself that if he spends his nights chasing criminals, it is impossible that he does not take pleasure in it. He suffers and it is a desire that overwhelms him. And by dint of knocking, his mind clears, he calms down, he reaches a state close to plenitude. I'm sure in this first fight, he manages to convince himself that every guy in front of him is the one who killed his mother (Laughs.) And so that allows him to vent all his rage.

"The interesting thing is that this Batman practically lives in the gutter. He's nowhere at home except on the street when he's wearing the suit. He lives a criminal life, but without committing crimes! I felt like I could get something out of that. Anyway, I could only play a superhero if he was really dirty!”

 

[Jason]

9 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Luckily there are databases for this that have got folks covered. It was very handy when my wife my pregnant.

 

Main - RunPee

RUNPEE.COM

---

As seen on Previous Next Download and use for free Popular Posts: Movie Review – Reminiscence This movie had the potential to be great, yet it… Read More August 20, 2021 Movie Review – Cruella Let me start...

 

 

To @Komusha's point about how dense modern movies are, I clicked on their one for No Way Home, and:

 

Quote

About The Peetimes: I wish I had more Peetimes, but there’s an hour-long period in the middle of the movie that is a Peetime desert. Trust me. I’ve got 2 early Peetimes, and then 1 Peetime right before the climactic action at the end of the movie begins. There isn’t another span long enough to use as a Peetime.

https://runpee.com/movie-review-spider-man-no-way-home/

[silentbob]

Early test screenings had the runtime at over 4 hours. So that sounds like a Director’s Cut disc release could be possible 

 

[Guest]

The theatrical cut is the director’s cut. Reeves is getting to release the movie he wants. Whether some clunkier extended cut will be released is a separate issue.

[Brick]

Was it a test screening or just an assembly cut? 

[LazyPiranha]

I think it’s perfectly fair to both feel that some nearly three hour movies earn that time and use it wisely while also feeling that Batman is a somewhat known quantity that you’re not eager to spend that time on.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

44 minutes ago, Brick said:

Was it a test screening or just an assembly cut? 

 

That HAS to be an assembly cut.

[Brick]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That HAS to be an assembly cut.

 

Unless it was an earlier cut with an extra 30 minutes of Batman and Gordon sitting around trying to figure out one of Riddler's riddles. 

 

"Is it a goat?" 

"No the answer has to be a giraffe, I think." 

"Can't be; those aren't black." 

"Oh right. A badger maybe?" 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Brick said:

Was it a test screening or just an assembly cut? 

Probably an extended cut... I can't see them releasing a four plus hour movie. Would make more sense for them to get two  movies for one and break them up  like Kill Bill or The Matrix 2 and 3.

[Kamusha]

I don't like to make assumptions on a movie's quality based on the runntime alone, but I think it's reasonable to have other assumptions as well. Like, I don't like anyone here read the runtime and assumed it was gonna be 3 full hours full of laughs and giggles.

[Kamusha]

 

[Kamusha]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

Great article on Batman's no killing code, how it came to be and why. Directly addresses some of the takes in I've seen in this topic.

 

A ‘The Batman’ Controversy Unsettles a Portion of Fandom

WWW.YAHOO.COM

---

“Remember we never kill with weapons of any kind!” Those words, uttered by the Caped Crusader to his partner, Robin, in Batman No. 4 (1940) marked...

 

I didn't realize his no killing code went back that far.