The Batman | March 4, 2022 | Warner Bros. | Certified Fresh on RT | 7th Most Profitable Movie of 2023

[cax16]

There’s a thread on Twitter with a reaction from the screening apparently, I’m not linking it cause it’s probably fake lol. If you wanna see it the guys Twitter is “blurayangel”. I have no idea if he’s credible or not. 

[excel1]

Spoiler

No way this doesn't tie to Joker. Just no way - the commercial potential of that combo is insane. 

 

[belblazer]

30 minutes ago, cax16 said:

There’s a thread on Twitter with a reaction from the screening apparently, I’m not linking it cause it’s probably fake lol. If you wanna see it the guys Twitter is “blurayangel”. I have no idea if he’s credible or not. 

It's true. The guy was retweeted by Reeves himself when he reacted to the trailer. According to him, the person showed proof that they indeed seen the movie.

[belblazer]

20 minutes ago, excel1 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

No way this doesn't tie to Joker. Just no way - the commercial potential of that combo is insane. 

 

Spoiler

When I read that part about the ending scene, I could only think about Joaquin's Joker.

 

[Napoleon]

I think it's natural that people hear about a 3-hour cut of this movie being tested and start to worry about WB's potential meddling, considering the history. It's how the internet works, people always do a lot of speculation about any detail that might lead to some drama. But of course it will be used to attack groups of people you hate, like if this wasn't a completely regular online behavior.

[belblazer]

People love to round numbers, so I bet that in fact it was something like 2h40m. Both cases are fine for me. People make such a big deal about 3h+ movies.

[excel1]

any spoilers yet?? plz dm

[RRA]

FWIW I know people are worried about online discourse over this 3 hour business for this film as somebody knee deep in the franchise war trenches of 5-6 years ago, I can tell you TB is in a much better place. Sure the usual hacks with their agendas and allegiances to studios or filmmakers are out there with their tryhard (or just dumb) talking points but general nerd discourse is more curious “really?” with a raised eyebrow than OMG WB IN TROUBLEZ again.

 

Is it WB doing better in managing/engaging such stuff? Is it Reeves thanks to his previous work having generated good Will where more people are giving him the benefit of the doubt than say somebody else 5-5 years ago? Is it after we’ve had 3 (sometimes longer) hour spandex films in recent times, the cherry has been popped relatively speaking? 

 

A bit of each I suppose. 

[WittyUsername]

I’ve always been under the impression that WB was willing to give Matt Reeves quite a bit of space for this movie. He was hired all the way back at the beginning of 2017, but cameras didn’t start rolling until three years later, and that was supposedly because WB was letting him take his time with the script. This clearly wasn’t something that was rushed into production. 

[dudalb]

On 8/28/2021 at 7:36 PM, SnokesLegs said:

So this guy wants a probably badly paced, 3 hour, work in progress workprint? I swear these idiots don’t have a clue what the term “editing” means.

100% agreed. I read that most movies are something like over 2 and half hours in length in the first assembly rough cut.

They also don't get the difference between "Test" and "Public" advance screenings.

To put it blunty studios want to keep the test screening secret, because they want the reactions of a wide audience; you do not want a test that is loaded with DC/Batman fanboys since that will really skew the reaction.

A public advance screening is somehting else;the film is pretty much in it;s release form and the screening to try to get the buzz started;you want the fanboys for that one.

[dudalb]

19 hours ago, RRA said:

FWIW I know people are worried about online discourse over this 3 hour business for this film as somebody knee deep in the franchise war trenches of 5-6 years ago, I can tell you TB is in a much better place. Sure the usual hacks with their agendas and allegiances to studios or filmmakers are out there with their tryhard (or just dumb) talking points but general nerd discourse is more curious “really?” with a raised eyebrow than OMG WB IN TROUBLEZ again.

 

Is it WB doing better in managing/engaging such stuff? Is it Reeves thanks to his previous work having generated good Will where more people are giving him the benefit of the doubt than say somebody else 5-5 years ago? Is it after we’ve had 3 (sometimes longer) hour spandex films in recent times, the cherry has been popped relatively speaking? 

 

A bit of each I suppose. 

Way back in 1939,  some film writers predicted that Gone With the Wind would bomb because it ran Three Hours and 45 minutes

I think the old saying "How Long Is It Good"?" is pretty much the truth. David Selznick, said he had seen movies that were too short at three hours and too long at 90 minutes. The idea that a movie is automatically "good" because it's long is as stupid as saying it's automatically bad because it's fairly short.

As for the guy who said the sucess of the Snyder Justice League proved audiences did not reject three hour movies: were you out of town when AvengersLEndgame  opened?

That is another thing I don;t like about the Snyder fanboys:the whole film universe revolves around Snyder in their opinion..

Edited August 30, 2021 by dudalb

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

FWIW I heard it’s not a work print and very well-paced

[Lucas]

Odds are the cut was closer to 2h and 30 min, but as they leave the screening it will have felt like a very long watch. I don't think the people (or person?) who said it's 3 hours actually went in with the intention of timing it to the minute.

[dudalb]

8 minutes ago, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

FWIW I heard it’s not a work print and very well-paced

They don't have tests for work prints, and lenght is one of the main reasons they have test screenings.

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

They don't have tests for work prints, and lenght is one of the main reasons they have test screenings.

That’s not true. I’ve literally attended and seen dozens of workprint screenings lol 

[grim22]

54 minutes ago, dudalb said:

They don't have tests for work prints, and lenght is one of the main reasons they have test screenings.

WTF are you saying? I've attended test screenings where the only VFX was literal line drawings on a screen.

 

Work prints are tested a lot because the actual VFX can't be changed much, so they need to ensure the movie around the effects is solid.

[RRA]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Way back in 1939,  some film writers predicted that Gone With the Wind would bomb because it ran Three Hours and 45 minutes

I think the old saying "How Long Is It Good"?" is pretty much the truth. David Selznick, said he had seen movies that were too short at three hours and too long at 90 minutes. The idea that a movie is automatically "good" because it's long is as stupid as saying it's automatically bad because it's fairly short.

As for the guy who said the sucess of the Snyder Justice League proved audiences did not reject three hour movies: were you out of town when AvengersLEndgame  opened?

That is another thing I don;t like about the Snyder fanboys:the whole film universe revolves around Snyder in their opinion..

Weirdly, I never mentioned Snyder’s name in my post that you quoted. Maybe you have the Snyder obsession? 🤣

 

 

Also I did mention Endgame, son.  Let me quote myself:
 

“after we’ve had 3 (sometimeslonger) hour spandex films in recent times”

 

I mean I assumed people would read that and infer that gee maybe I was referring to EG and with the plural, the SnyderCut. Both are the only 3 hour (or longer) live action spandex films we’ve gotten in recent memory. But clearly I expected too much. 

 

Twice now I’ve been attacked recently for…being positive about TB regardless of its potential length? Wut? 

 

 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, RRA said:

Weirdly, I never mentioned Snyder’s name in my post that you quoted. Maybe you have the Snyder obsession? 🤣

 

 

Also I did mention Endgame, son.  Let me quote myself:
 

“after we’ve had 3 (sometimeslonger) hour spandex films in recent times”

 

I mean I assumed people would read that and infer that gee maybe I was referring to EG and with the plural, the SnyderCut. Both are the only 3 hour (or longer) live action spandex films we’ve gotten in recent memory. But clearly I expected too much. 

 

Twice now I’ve been attacked recently for…being positive about TB regardless of its potential length? Wut? 

 

 

Actually my comment was not aimed at you, but on a poster who said that the sucess of Snyder's Justice League version proved that Comic book audiences were receptive to really long movies; my point was that point was made a long time before, with "Endgame" 

being the prome example.

Oh, I have no problems with a long Batman film so long as it is good, and the story justifies the length.

I expect the final running time of "The Batman" will be around two and half hours, the running time of "The Dark Knight". I know that DK rises ran about fifteen minutes longer, but to be it dragged in places, one of its' flaws.

[belblazer]

 

DC Fandome panels:

 

• The Batman trailer

• Black Adam teaser

• The Flash sneak peak

• Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 backstages.

[lilmac]

Which will gross more, Doctor Strange 2 or The Batman. I have DS2 winning by a hair due to its MCU/multiverse connection.