The Dark Knight Director's Cut???

[jcmountain34]

I was just wondering how many of you out there thought about this along with me. With probably a good amount of footage that had to cut out of the movie to even bring it down to 2 1/2 hours, do you think Nolan will issue a longer maybe even 3 hours long cut of the film. Doing so by putting a lot of the stuff he had to cut from the film for length purposes. To be honest i would love to see a longer cut with footage. I couldnt get enough of this film. Just thought i would see how many of you were on the same page as me or even might now more about this happening.

[SS316SRV]

Longer is not always better. There might be good reasons that the footage was cut. Also, if there are touch ups that need to be made to The Joker, it is impossible.

[JBlacklow]

IIRC, Nolan doesn't do Director's Cuts, because he considers the final cut his vision. Not to mention, a 150min movie that was already near-perfectly paced and edited would probably not benefit from one.

[Beta Man]

Almost every movie has multiple scenes that get shot, and left "on the cutting room floor" when the final movie is pieced together...... Many times those scenes are cut for a good reason It's not like they're holding back 30 minutes of absolutely blockbuster material from you.....

[jurassic_pork]

i think the extra footage just builds up the extras section of the blu-ray release.....I think for this movie everyone will at least check out any deleted scenes at least once.

[fighthefutureofhd]

i love the dark knight but if they add any more to this movie it'll sink the movie. the lord of the rings were long as it is and the extended editions just toys with one's patience. can one imagine a 3 & 1/2 hour version of the dark knight?

[stockstar1138]

everytime somebody says scenes got cut for a good reason.

i pop in disc 2 of Revenge of the Sith, watch the birth of the rebel alliance, which got cut from the movie, and say, I DISAGREE WITH YOU SIR!!!

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

can one imagine a 3 & 1/2 hour version of the dark knight?

Well if I liked a piece of chocolate cake, the only way to make it better is to get a bigger piece next. Right? More Dark Knight doesn't make it a better movie. In fact, it could slow the pace down way to much.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

everytime somebody says scenes got cut for a good reason.

i pop in disc 2 of Revenge of the Sith, watch the birth of the rebel alliance, which got cut from the movie, and say, I DISAGREE WITH YOU SIR!!!

Not every scene gets cut for good reason, but a lot of them do. Also, Nolan is a meticulous director, I imagine that the theatrical version is very much so the "Director's Cut".

[TheJesus]

I think most times things get cut for a good reason. But there are cases, such as with The Lord of the Rings, where things had to be cut for length purposes... Hence the extended edition DVDs.

That would be awesome to see for the Dark Knight, but I wouldn't be disappointed if it didn't happen.

[STARSCREAM]

He won't do it or they would have already released a directors cut of Batman Begins. Like others have said, Nolan doesn't do directors/extended cuts.

[stockstar1138]

i would like the option to add scenes into the movie via seemless branching.

[Beast]

Didn't Nolan recently say in an interview that much like with Batman Begins there's no deleted scenes or extended cut possible, because they pretty much used all the footage that they shot. The only alternate takes that exist are of Ledger's Joker riffing and they likely won't be included out of respect for Ledger.

[Eagle_23]

I HIGHLY doubt there will be a DC or even an unrated version. Just the regular length theatrical cut.......unfortunately. I'd certainly LOVE to see a longer potentially unrated cut though. Hell I'd pay a $100 dollars just to buy that version, LOL. I love this movie!

[ClaytonMG]

Considering the fact that on Batman Begins he said it wouldn't change a single frame, I'd imagine WB pretty much let him do his own thing on this one and what we saw was his cut of the film.

And for the love of Pete, how many Dark Knight threads do we really need? Can we get a sticky or something so that these threads stop?

[Sith]

the fact that they let him release it at 2.5 hours would seem to me that
everything was put in...

[jcmountain34]

There are many scenes in the movie that you can tell were edited quickly to move on to the next. Because of the length of the film Nolan had to keep the pace going. The studios do put some limits on the length of a film. If the film is too long it can hurts it potential box off because people dont want to spend that much time in a theatre. I was just curious what scenes he had to trim down and if will look back at those for the BLU-RAY release and consider extending some of the scenes that seemed cut of or short. Still I loved this movie my favorite of the year. I felt is was perfect the way it was. I am always curious to see more of movies that I loved so much. A rare gem in the crap that hollywood normally gives us.

[Eternalnow]

Hell, I'd take a 3 1/2 hour 'Dark Knight' any day!

[ThePhantomOak]

Originally Posted by jcmountain34

I was just wondering how many of you out there thought about this along with me. With probably a good amount of footage that had to cut out of the movie to even bring it down to 2 1/2 hours, do you think Nolan will issue a longer maybe even 3 hours long cut of the film. Doing so by putting a lot of the stuff he had to cut from the film for length purposes. To be honest i would love to see a longer cut with footage. I couldnt get enough of this film. Just thought i would see how many of you were on the same page as me or even might now more about this happening.

I read there is a LOT of Ledger film left over.

[mjbethancourt]

Some extended cuts are good, some are bad; but most importantly, even within an extended cut, not all added footage is equal. Consider LOTR: those movies were specifically trimmed for time constraints. The extended cuts restored a lot of scenes that were absolutely critical to the story and vastly improved the films overall, but at the same time, about 1/3 of that stuff did not need to be included. The pacing of the cinematic cuts was rushed and felt completely wrong, like a TV edit, and in particular, camera shots added back to existing scenes gave us Jackson's aesthetic, as opposed to Barrie Osborne's. The extended cut of 'Kingdom of Heaven', on the other hand, is terrible compared to the original, (I'm putting on my helmet now, anticipating a crapstorm from Ridley Scott's cult).

fighthefutureofhd
i love the dark knight but if they add any more to this movie it'll sink the movie. the lord of the rings were long as it is and the extended editions just toys with one's patience. can one imagine a 3 & 1/2 hour version of the dark knight?

No, your posts toy with one's patience. Once again, you remind us that there are a bunch of people out there who get a headache whenever a movie slows down long enough to let you think about what is happening. Not everything is meant to look like a preview trailer.

'The Dark Knight' is a long movie, but it's because so much happens that must be shown. The editing is good, but I think it could actually benefit from a little bit of breathing room, I think it actually was specifically cut to limit the runtime, not for aesthetic precision. Both movies were edited by Lee Smith, but still, it's a totally different package. All that being said, I'm with those who say that the odds of there being an extended cut are almost zero.