According to a report by Deadline, The Batman had a shorter cut that didn’t test as well. No solid details are given, but apparently this shorter cut was tested on audiences. For whatever reason, those test subjects preferred the longer version. I guess this is a response of sorts to some critics who felt the movie was a little too long? I honestly didn’t get that feel from The Batman at all. The Batman has a lot of slow moments in it and I think cutting some of that would lose mood, tone, and perhaps even some plot details.
A shorter version of The Batman was tested. However, that cut didn’t test as well as the 2-hour, 55-minute version.
It goes without saying this move is unusual, especially from WB who mandated that Justice League had to be no more than 2 hours long at one point. Thankfully those test audiences cane through, because I really can’t think where you could cut another 10-15 minutes of The Batman without losing something? For me the slower paced plot worked so well in this movie, so that action scenes felt natural as opposed to the plot being built around them. Ok, maybe the Batmobile scene felt like it was written around the set piece, but not the other action moments for me.
RELATED: Matt Reeves Debunks Robin Fan Theory – However Admits He May Steal It For Sequels
I will wait until home release before watching The Batman again. That’s when I’ll feel I get a really goo idea of the movies re-watch-ability factor. It’ll be interesting to see if The Batman is as cool to watch multiple times as the Nolan TDK trilogy?
So The Batman had a shorter cut that didn’t test well. What do you think? Would a shorter cut have been better, or was The Batman just the right length for your tastes? Thoughts below as always.