MovieChat Forums > The Batman (2022) Discussion > Three hours is too long.

Three hours is too long.

posted 3 years ago by R_Kane (15828)
8 replies | jump to latest

A theater can sell TWO tickets to the normal 90-minute movie, compared with a 3-hour slog. (Hell. The Tour of Gilligans island was going to be 3 fucking hours!)!Sly Stallone wrote Cobra to, like, 83 minutes because it meant the theaters could get in 1 more round of ticket sales than with a 90-minute flick.

Also, you need to bring a portable urinal with you. At the dawn of civilization, 3-hour films (1) began by ROLLING BACK THE CURTAINS ON THE STAGE, exposing the screen and telling the audience they were about to have AN EXPERIENCE (2) had an orchestral overture, like an opera (e.g., John Frankenheimer’s Grand Prix) and (3) at the 90 minute mark, put INTERMISSION up on the screen to relieve bladders and sell more concession junk food.

This thing took fully 60 minutes to get
going: glacial pacing. The frames are dark
and muddy, frustrating to watch.

Robert Pattinson was better than I thought he would be, but, JEEZ, don’t show him shirtless. He’s a fucking toothpick. I thought Kravitz was much better than most other posters did, but no 1 is ever going to equal Michelle Pfeiffer. I will take Eartha Kitt (Batman! Batman! Batman!) over every other Catwoman than Michelle. Halle Berry got screwed by a terrible script: I fucking LOVE black women and I think
a black Catwoman is YUM.

I haven’t been in a movie theater since now I sawOutrageous Fortune. Do they charge higher prices for obscenely long movies?

Andy Serkis is the worst Alfred thus far in Batman movies. He’s a motion-capture model. He is not Michael Caine. Did the budget run out at casting time?

This needs to be cut by 1 hour.

So do most of Tarantino’s movies.

[–] PersistentViewer (2377) 3 years ago

Intermissions need to come back.

[–] Reaperscout (605) 3 years ago

No. I got through The Batman fine when I saw it in theaters. The only problem I ran into was that I started getting hungry around the scene where Falcone is shot/killed. But that's like 2 hours and some minutes in. So I just had to hang in there for another 30-40 minutes. And lots of movies throughout the years prove intermissions aren't needed. Titanic, Avatar, Avengers: Endgame, and all three Lord Of The Rings movies are a few examples.

[–] Reaperscout (605) 3 years ago

The movie's runtime was fine. I was never bored. Movie kept moving for me and it "got going" almost immediately for me. I've also watched a lot of 90-minute movies that feel longer than The Batman. Like Halloween 5. Or a good chunk of the Friday The 13th movies (mainly because I don't like the camp setting, Friday The 13th Part 6 is the only one I really like since it's more action-y than all the others). Or most of the Nightmare On Elm Street sequels (I only like the first one and Wes Craven's New Nightmare). Eternals even felt longer than The Batman.

Titanic, Avatar, Avengers: Endgame, and all three Lord Of The Rings (and probably many more) prove that longer movies can be successful. Also, all these movies (except for maybe Endgame) felt shorter than the 90-minute movies I listed. They definitely felt shorter than Eternals. The Shining 1997 miniseries (which is about 4.5 hours) felt shorter than Eternals and all those 90-minute movies I listed. Heck, a season of Stranger Things or Sons of Anarchy flies by faster than these 90-minute movies I listed.

For me, The Batman further confirmed something I already knew. It doesn't come down to runtime and runtime should be looked at last. It comes down to plot/story and characters. If the characters and story/plot are interesting enough, then the runtime shouldn't really matter.

And after watching The Batman twice, I don't know what could be cut. Everything felt important/needed/had a purpose/led to something. I heard there is a 4-hour cut of the movie. So if there is, I think they already removed all the filler/fluff scenes and subplots.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

To be honest I felt the three hours went by relatively quickly. But yes, it's definitely too long. This story didn't need a near 3 hour runtime. This film would have been much better clocking in around 2 hours, it would have been leaner, meaner and more entertaining.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

In all fields of media, except perhaps for fine arts, editing is EVERYTHING. Many scholars believe Ezra Pound is the real author of The Waste Land, because he honed ts elliot’s rough draft into a masterpiece. A comic book movie has no excuse for being
3 hours long, and that includes all of Abrams’ egotistical crap. Say whatever you like. I’m entirely satisfied with my conclusion. I come here to pontificate and play, not to discuss. Once, it was otherwise. Now, no more. This place has changed for the worse.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I agree that editing/pacing is an art form and very important.

When you watch a 3 hour film you're expecting some grand epic tale, a story spanning many subplots with many intriguing developments. This film just felt like a standard superhero story stretched thin. Many long brooding scenes with nirvana playing in the background which add nothing but bloat. Some would call it 'atmosphere'. I think many people fall for the perception that long, slow and brooding is artistic and therefore good. I swear any film that is long and slow gets heaped with praise from certain peoples and if you critique it you'll get told to go watch transformers because you have ADHD. Lmao.

Midsommar (in particular the directors cut) is another recent-ish film that clocked in at nearly 3 hours for no good reason. Many scenes drag on angonizingly. Both films needed a good seeing to in the editing room.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 3 years ago

Tarantino: Nevah!

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

My son and I never felt it dragged. I didn't notice the time at all.