Flash movie cuts Joker and Penguin

[rsaffle]

reports reveal that the initial assembly cut of the FLASH film was four hours long, and so some key cameos were left on the cutting room floor for time.
Specifically, a bunch of cameos from TV incarnations didn’t make the final cut, including Lynda Carter’s Wonder Woman from the 1970s series, Burgess Meredith’s Penguin and Cesar Romero’s Joker from the 1960s “Batman” TV series, and most significantly Grant Gustin’s The Flash from the about to finish nine seasons long The CW series.

[ELVIS]

I'll hope for an extended cut later, or for those cameos to be included as Bonus Material.

[SprangFan]

I'm constantly amazed at stories of films that end up hours too long and have to be trimmed down by half or more to be shown in theaters. Just how incompetent would you have to be at planning in order to end up wasting that much time, money and film? No wonder the budgets on these things are so big. Maybe try storyboarding next time? Paper's cheap compared to film.

[JWLJN]

I follow very little comic related outside of our Batman ‘66. I was aware that Keaton Batman was going to be back in this Flash movie, but obviously that was newly filmed. I’m assuming Burgess and Cesar would’ve been edited in with existing footage and/or CGI like Tarkin/Luke/etc in Star Wars?

[AndyFish]

These extended cut and four hour movies remind me about the old restaurant joke-- something about the place always being packed despite the food being terrible-- because the portions are huge!

[Larry A.]

I understand the need to cut the running time as I am a former movie theater manager and since We make our theater's money off of concessions which are mainly bought before the show, a shorter running time allows for more concession sales when the next batch of viewers come in.
Another reason for shorter films ( and I personally thing this is the REAL reason for shorter films) is the last couple of generations seem to have shorter attention spans. Think back, if one will to "The Sound of Music", "2001: A Space Odyssey" and other films of similar length from the 60's. For that matter..."An Evening with Batman and Robin".
Something to think about...

[BiffPow]

Maybe try storyboarding next time? Paper's cheap compared to film.

This.

My guess is so that they can release it as a “director’s cut.” It won’t be any better.

[BiffPow]

These extended cut and four hour movies remind me about the old restaurant joke-- something about the place always being packed despite the food being terrible-- because the portions are huge!

Super (hero) size us!

[BiffPow]

I understand the need to cut the running time as I am a former movie theater manager and since We make our theater's money off of concessions which are mainly bought before the show, a shorter running time allows for more concession sales when the next batch of viewers come in.
Another reason for shorter films ( and I personally thing this is the REAL reason for shorter films) is the last couple of generations seem to have shorter attention spans. Think back, if one will to "The Sound of Music", "2001: A Space Odyssey" and other films of similar length from the 60's. For that matter..."An Evening with Batman and Robin".
Something to think about...

I’m sorry, Larry. What were you saying? I got distracted.

[SprangFan]

I get the need to trim movies to a reasonable run time, and I get the "why" (more showings per day, though that's less of an issue in this era of the multiplex). What I don't get is how you can end up with not minutes to trim, but *hours.* It's hard to imagine a filmmaker being given a bottomless barrel of cash and told, "Go shoot whatever you want and we'll cobble together a story out of the best bits." But that seems to be the norm.

The alternative, I guess, is that they're told to film a lot of extra content with an eye towards including it as supplemental features on DVDs and Blu-Rays, but that too feels excessively indulgent. Do they also tell the performers "mess this take up, okay? We need content for the blooper reel."

Interestingly, the trend now is to make movies longer, not shorter. It seems like in order to be taken seriously these days a film has to be at least two and half hours long, whether there's enough story to fill that runtime or not. I don't know if that does anything for concession sales or not, but it's got to be a cash cow for whoever manufactures urinal cakes.

[BiffPow]

I don't know if that does anything for concession sales or not, but it's got to be a cash cow for whoever manufactures urinal cakes.

SprangFan, you must be a comedy writer.

[Larry A.]

I understand the need to cut the running time as I am a former movie theater manager and since We make our theater's money off of concessions which are mainly bought before the show, a shorter running time allows for more concession sales when the next batch of viewers come in.
Another reason for shorter films ( and I personally thing this is the REAL reason for shorter films) is the last couple of generations seem to have shorter attention spans. Think back, if one will to "The Sound of Music", "2001: A Space Odyssey" and other films of similar length from the 60's. For that matter..."An Evening with Batman and Robin".
Something to think about...

I’m sorry, Larry. What were you saying? I got distracted.

I agree! I've been diagnosed with adult onset attention Deficit Disorder so I am constantly bouncing from one thing to another sooooo I know about short attention spans!

[Ben Bentley]

I get the need to trim movies to a reasonable run time, and I get the "why" (more showings per day, though that's less of an issue in this era of the multiplex). What I don't get is how you can end up with not minutes to trim, but *hours.* It's hard to imagine a filmmaker being given a bottomless barrel of cash and told, "Go shoot whatever you want and we'll cobble together a story out of the best bits." But that seems to be the norm.

The alternative, I guess, is that they're told to film a lot of extra content with an eye towards including it as supplemental features on DVDs and Blu-Rays, but that too feels excessively indulgent. Do they also tell the performers "mess this take up, okay? We need content for the blooper reel."

Interestingly, the trend now is to make movies longer, not shorter. It seems like in order to be taken seriously these days a film has to be at least two and half hours long, whether there's enough story to fill that runtime or not. I don't know if that does anything for concession sales or not, but it's got to be a cash cow for whoever manufactures urinal cakes.

In the case of this specific movie, they essentially shot the film nearly four times between the start of it's principal photography the first time around and the fall of Rome/Burbank that happened in the meantime. At this point you could probably make an appropriately unhinged six-part miniseries with the amount of pages filmed for this movie that they're still insisting on calling "The Flash", if only for the sheer fact that "Batman Returns" was already taken.

[BiffPow]

they're still insisting on calling "The Flash", if only for the sheer fact that "Batman Returns" was already taken.

They could have called it: “Batman, Batman, Batman… Returns.”

[Lord Death Man]

The cost of film and developing is no longer a major concern-virtually all studio films are shot and released digitally. So they can shoot a lot more, although of course sets/props/CGI costs also enter into the equation for this. Even in Japan the Tsupro and Toei stuff I've been in as an extra (Ultraman, Super Sentai, Kamen Rider TV series and movies) use digital. There are a few holdouts (like the recent Jurassic World and NOPE) but The Flash appears to be all digital.