The Run Time Length Thread

[FaT_tONle]

We all know it's not going to be true cmon guys... I take you back to X-3... SHH confirming it... 144 minutes... a report coming out of nowhere... EVERYONE thought it was the real deal... What happened? 104 minutes... that's Fox for you. Don't start doubting Donner over what will probably amount to be a trash report in a few months.

[Sam Fisher]

90 mins or 2 hrs, no way I'm skipping this movie.

[chaseter]

Oh Sam.

[Sam Fisher]

No, I don't want green eggs and ham:hehe:



{Why your post reminded me of Dr. Seus I don't know:csad:}

[chaseter]

Lay off the drugs:o

[Sam Fisher]

Lay off the drugs:oStupid is as stupid does:p

[theJust]

I'll catch the movie early through the trailers.

[alexlachiusa]

IMDB has listed the running time as 118 minutes.

If that's true then I'm happy.

[Spider-Vader]

Maybe Marvel should try to get a deal where they get full creative control of their franchises & cross-over, while Fox distributes & gets the same money.

[chaseter]

IMDB has listed the running time as 118 minutes.

If that's true then I'm happy.
They were wrong about X3's run time when we first got word it was short they had a lengthier run time which was false. They also said Aunt May would become Carnage in SM3.

Fact is...they are still editing the movie from a quote not 2 days ago so to think this movie is done and ready to go this early is a bit unfounded so I wouldn't be investing too much in someone posting a run time:o

[YJ1]

Gavin Hood is not Brett Ratner.

Hugh Jackman is head honcho in the production of Wolverine, not just the lead actor (X3).

David Benioff is a GOD next to Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg.

Wolverine on his own CAN justify a 90 minute movie (Mad Max, The Road Warrior, First Blood, etc...)

The removal of certain cameos may be further evidence of Jackman and Hood's plan to keep this movie about Wolverine and not other mutants.

*the removal of those cameos may also be indication that FOX is dropping the proposed X-Men: First Class movie.

DING!

All great points and all trump the typical fanboy Fox bashing that always hits new heights on these boards. A longer running time to flesh out development is always better but I'm going to wait and see it before I start to rant. Silly me.

Fox deserves a lot of criticism at times but they have delivered as well. Without Fox pushing Wolverine through, there would be no legitimate comic adaptation film for 2009. That means they get the benefit of the doubt from me. (Please don't mention Watchmen...)

[alexlachiusa]

Why shouldn't we mention Watchmen?

[def28]

Everyone complains when they put to many cameos in the movie. But if they cut out cameos that might be pointless and not serve the movie everyone complains more. Cant make everyone happy. I really doubt Storm is an essential part of Wolverine. But if she was to be cut, they should have not showed her in the trailer. Teasing fans is kind of asking for it.

Im sure the running time will be more then 1 hour 30 min. The re-shoots/additional scenes probably were not even added in to the cut yet. Bottom line, they are still editing. They don't even know the official time.

[TheVileOne]

Hey when X-men 3 came out people were ready to believe any and all false propaganda that was going around. Not surprising that the same would happen here.

Under two hour running time, wouldn't surprise me.

Fox and most movie studios want movies under two hours.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still want to know why anybody would expect the movie to big longer than an 1hr 40? If it is in the final cut, I will be surprised.

For some reason Fox likes it that way, eventhough the biggest comicbook movies have either been very near or over 2hr's. You know movies like Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3, TDK, Iron Man, X2 and Batman Begins. The only over 200mil one that bucks this trend is X3 and thats because it was a sequel to X2 ofcourse.

Unlike others on here I thought that both Batman movies and X2 were too long. X2 by a little bit. I believe that 1:50 to 1:55 minutes would be a great runtime and much appreciated by me because these uber long action adventure films are wearing out their welcomes with me. But Fox always has to take things to the extreme so I expect 1 hour and 35 minutes.

[protocida]

Storm is important to the Plot. Follow me:


Cel. Stryker creates the Team X to capture mutants. The Team X goes to South Africa capture Storm, and violently attacks her village to find her. Wolverine realizes he didn't signed up for that during the mission, and runs away, moving the Plot foward.


Without Storm, they'd have to insere another reason for the mission, or make a really genious copy-and-past work. :hehe:

[FaT_tONle]

Fox deserves a lot of criticism at times but they have delivered as well. Without Fox pushing Wolverine through, there would be no legitimate comic adaptation film for 2009. That means they get the benefit of the doubt from me. (Please don't mention Watchmen...)

So people have to watch it because it's the first May movie... and the only of the summer obviously? I am sorry but how about fans watch only the comicbooks that are good? Unless this gets reviews somewhere in between TIH/IM I am definitely passing on it.

[TheVileOne]

Sure people say the Batman movies are too long.

But The Dark Knight still made over $530 millin and almost a billion worldwide.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Sure people say the Batman movies are too long.

But The Dark Knight still made over $530 millin and almost a billion worldwide.Your point being? A movie can be good and too long.:whatever: Titantic made 600mil in 1997 (at much lower tickets prices) is it above criticism like TDK seems to be in some people's minds? The Dark Knight was used as an example of my general dislike of movies being overly long now or days. I'm bashing all overly long movies. I decided to use a great movie as my example because it could have been better if tighten IMHO and it's a source of annoyance for me. Could I have used Transformers or Superman Returns as an example? Yeah, but I didn't because it would have been way too easy to pick on those poor films.

During my go on the Spider-Man boards I kept hearing how many didn't equal quality and I agreed that it didn't. It seems now that money does equal quality in the fanboys eyes. Strange.

Anyway this isn't a Batman thread so I'm done with the topic.

[FrostBite]

So people have to watch it because it's the first May movie... and the only of the summer obviously? I am sorry but how about fans watch only the comicbooks that are good? Unless this gets reviews somewhere in between TIH/IM I am definitely passing on it.

Wow, if I listened to reviews that much I'd be one dull little boy.

[chaseter]

Your point being? A movie can be good and too long.:whatever: Titantic made 600mil in 1997 (at much lower tickets prices) is it above criticism like TDK seems to be in some people's minds? The Dark Knight was used as an example of my general dislike of movies being overly long now or days. I'm bashing all overly long movies. I decided to use a great movie as my example because it could have been better if tighten IMHO and it's a source of annoyance for me. Could I have used Transformers or Superman Returns as an example? Yeah, but I didn't because it would have been way too easy to pick on those poor films.

During my go on the Spider-Man boards I kept hearing how many didn't equal quality and I agreed that it didn't. It seems now that money does equal quality in the fanboys eyes. Strange.

Anyway this isn't a Batman thread so I'm done with the topic.
Yeah this isn't TDK talk but he is talking about run time. But...there are many many more movies that are over 2 hours long that are greatly successful films than compared to 90 minute flicks:o

Titanic was nearly 3 hours btw. Look at the top grossing films of all time...how many are 90-100 minutes:huh:
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php

[TheVileOne]

Just saying it's this dumb, flawed studio mindset.

Fans like longer movies.

Audiences also like longer movies provided they are a big, theatrical experience.

A movie has to go above and beyond what someone can get at home in order to inspire people to go to the theatres. The Dark Knight did that.

Why should we trust Fox now when they've butchered so many potentially good comic book movies and they hacked up the run time to make sure they were under an hour and 45 minutes?

[FaT_tONle]

Wow, if I listened to reviews that much I'd be one dull little boy.

Well if you are just going to make up your mind that you are seeing the film regardless... then it just shows you can't get away from the Marvel brand. If you can't get by as a movie goer without these films then that is even worse. Believe me it will be tough passing up on this film... I still have it in my sig. But I have two strikes on me after X-3 and SM-3... that's why I won't take a chance with Wolverine unless I am certain it will be a quality film.

[Da-Scribe]

Well if you are just going to make up your mind that you are seeing the film regardless... then it just shows you can't get away from the Marvel brand. If you can't get by as a movie goer without these films then that is even worse. Believe me it will be tough passing up on this film... I still have it in my sig. But I have two strikes on me after X-3 and SM-3... that's why I won't take a chance with Wolverine unless I am certain it will be a quality film.

I take it this moviegoing thing is a big deal for you.

[FaT_tONle]

I take it this moviegoing thing is a big deal for you.

Sure... why not? I mean you want to blow ten dollars off to see some bull **** film and be entertained then go for it. Everyone does that every now and then. But when you start talking about these superhero films... I NEVER want to see the integrity of these characters compromised... it's a big deal to me. X-3 and SM3 are examples of compromising the integrity of the characters and the source material. Fans shouldn't stand for it.

[Spidey 2007]

Just saying it's this dumb, flawed studio mindset.

Fans like longer movies.

Audiences also like longer movies provided they are a big, theatrical experience.

A movie has to go above and beyond what someone can get at home in order to inspire people to go to the theatres. The Dark Knight did that.

Why should we trust Fox now when they've butchered so many potentially good comic book movies and they hacked up the run time to make sure they were under an hour and 45 minutes?

Hmmm, I actually agree with you! :dry:

The fact that movie tickets are so expensive now a days, runs people away, especially the moms and dads who pay for their kids, and people who have a rough time already making it money wise (like I) But i had no trouble seeing TDK 4 times because i knew it was worth it, it was a 2 n a half hour worth while experience!

if wolverines a short experience ill end up seeing it once, if its a good, short film, then ill probably end up seeing it twice. But i wouldn't imagine 4 times like i did with TDK..

I admit i was one of the people who had false hope for X3 being longer and all that bullshiz, hell it was fun! but i learned my lesson haha.

[TheVileOne]

I mean it was the same thing with F4. And then they made FF: ROTS even shorter and people still thought it would be good!

I like and respect Hugh Jackman a lot. But I mean . . . Fox is still Fox.

[RichardMoore]

The Dark Knight was used as an example of my general dislike of movies being overly long now or days. I'm bashing all overly long movies.

Movies used to be much longer. I think movies are overly short nowadays. If I take the time to go to a movie theater, I want my movie to be at least two hours long.

I mean, I have no problem with a three-hour good movie. I'd prefer a three-hour good film to a 1 1/2 hour good film.

[chaseter]

I just don't know anybody who walks out of a 90 minute movie and talks it up more than an epic 2.5-3 hour movie talking abot how awesome it was.

[Doctor Jones]

Exactly.

TDK had an appropriate time and Wolverine should be over two hours. Around X2's time or hell longer would be nice.

Fox will probably get out there damn directors cut to make more money.

[Spider-Vader]

Exactly.

TDK had an appropriate time and Wolverine should be over two hours. Around X2's time or hell longer would be nice.

Fox will probably get out there damn directors cut to make more money.
They could have a X2 run length & then come out with an unrated cut sometime later.

Everabodah happy!

[chaseter]

Ahhhh da meataballs.

How racist of you:o

[Rac]

Fox deserves a lot of criticism at times but they have delivered as well. Without Fox pushing Wolverine through, there would be no legitimate comic adaptation film for 2009. That means they get the benefit of the doubt from me. (Please don't mention Watchmen...)
Looking at their filmography from past ten years (No use going beyond that. They were still a good studio in the 90's.), these are the movies I've liked:

The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008) (F you, it was good "two-parter episode")
Transporter 2 (2005)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) (Director's Cut)
X2 (2003)
X-Men (2000)
Ravenous (1999)

In Death Sentence, Road to Perdition and Mouling Rouge! Fox is credited as "Presents", so I dunno what's the deal there. Either way, I liked those as well. Also, From Hell is a complete **** compared to the comic book, but I have soft spot for the movie adaptation as I saw it before reading the comic.

20th Century Fox produced films (http://akas.imdb.com/company/co0000756/#productionX20company)

(Fight Club was a Fox 2000 Pictures production. If someone wonders something...)

[Saint]

I mean it was the same thing with F4. And then they made FF: ROTS even shorter and people still thought it would be good!

I like and respect Hugh Jackman a lot. But I mean . . . Fox is still Fox.
Indeed. I had hoped this film was escaping the usual Fox tampering, but this news reveals that it probably hasn't. There a lot of people saying "It can be short and still be good," but that seems wishful thinking, considering that the probable reason for it being short is Fox cutting out chunks of the movie.

It's going to cause me considerable distress if we end up in another "The word is out on the Kingpin" situation. The word is out, yeah? Too bad you forgot to put that in the goddamn movie! Idiots.

[MrShifty]

See the thing is that ticket prices have gone up so much and it just cost a lot to even go to the movies. So thats why I like longer movies. I mean if its all filler that's one thing, I can understand having an awesome hour and a half movie. But something like this that is advertised as being this epic movie and its not like it takes place at one set time. This movie covers a long period of time so I was hoping it would be at least 2 hours

[Casius--J]

Indeed. I had hoped this film was escaping the usual Fox tampering, but this news reveals that it probably hasn't. There a lot of people saying "It can be short and still be good," but that seems wishful thinking, considering that the probable reason for it being short is Fox cutting out chunks of the movie.

It's going to cause me considerable distress if we end up in another "The word is out on the Kingpin" situation. The word is out, yeah? Too bad you forgot to put that in the goddamn movie! Idiots.

My thoughts exactly, I really hope it doesnt turn out this way! And that the run time is in fact what was shot and not fox's usual hacking!

[chaseter]

I don't see why they would intentionally write this to be a short movie though...it's an origin movie.

[protocida]

IMDb says the movie is 118 minutes. I think it's more.

[FaT_tONle]

IMDb says the movie is 118 minutes. I think it's more.

I'll consider seeing the film if its close to two hours. You sure about this? Where else have you heard? It is IMBD after all... :csad:

Indeed. I had hoped this film was escaping the usual Fox tampering, but this news reveals that it probably hasn't. There a lot of people saying "It can be short and still be good," but that seems wishful thinking, considering that the probable reason for it being short is Fox cutting out chunks of the movie.



It's going to cause me considerable distress if we end up in another "The word is out on the Kingpin" situation. The word is out, yeah? Too bad you forgot to put that in the goddamn movie! Idiots.

Yeah I was fooled too... I mean I wasn't expecting anything substantial after the first FF film but still... they could have at least tried to make a competent film for mature audiences. But they kept the same formula and now another potential Marvel franchise is dead because of Fox.

[Andreth]

I hope this is true:


Additional Details

Also Known As:

Wolverine (USA) (working title)
more (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458525/releaseinfo#akas)

Runtime:

118 min

Country:

USA (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/USA/) | New Zealand (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/NewZealand/) | Australia (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/Australia/)
Language:

English (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Languages/English/)


at least that's better than 90min

It is IMBD after all... :csad:

Exactly :(

[Spider-Vader]

Ahhhh da meataballs.

How racist of you:o

Actually it was a Family Guy reference. Thank you very much. Hmmph!

[The Original Bamfer]

IMDb says the movie is 118 minutes. I think it's more.

I highly doubt it.

[Spidey 2007]

hmm if its 118 then thats not so bad.... X1 and x3 was 104 minutes so based on the logic that a longer movie equals better quality, Wolverine will be better than both X1 and X3 at least.:whatever:

[sniktsnakt]

IMDb says the movie is 118 minutes. I think it's more.

!!!! Oh, man. Please, please, please let it be true.

I hope so. Isn't IMDB where all the stuff on Deadpool was rumored, dismissed, and then looks like it's going to be correct?

[Deaths Head II]

hmm if its 118 then thats not so bad.... X1 and x3 was 104 minutes so based on the logic that a longer movie equals better quality, Wolverine will be better than both X1 and X3 at least.:whatever:

I love how people keep acting like we're claiming runtime alone makes a better movie when we're obviously not. It is so totally a not smarmy way of misrepresenting our position to make it look ridiculous.

Sarcasm aside, I would be satisfied with 118 minutes. Maybe this film will have a chance at good pacing and character development, unlike X3.

[Daredevil_2003]

I don't mind a short film as long as it's well paced and feels like a complete tale. I'll be pissed if it ends up like Daredevil. A pretty good film that was made mediocre by gutting it for a shorter run time. The DC of that film still isn't exemplary but it's a much better film than the theatrical cut. I think Wolverine will be better regardless, but I hope it doesn't fall into the same rut by being hacked to pieces.

[Deaths Head II]

I don't mind a short film as long as it's well paced and feels like a complete tale. I'll be pissed if it ends up like Daredevil. A pretty good film that was made mediocre by gutting it for a shorter run time. The DC of that film still isn't exemplary but it's a much better film than the theatrical cut. I think Wolverine will be better regardless, but I hope it doesn't fall into the same rut by being hacked to pieces.

That's what most of us are afraid of. It often happens that material is cut out that is necessary to make sure the plot is coherent. Lets hope that's not the case with this film.

[FaT_tONle]

I love how people keep acting like we're claiming runtime alone makes a better movie when we're obviously not. It is so totally a not smarmy way of misrepresenting our position to make it look ridiculous.

Sarcasm aside, I would be satisfied with 118 minutes. Maybe this film will have a chance at good pacing and character development, unlike X3.

Well it HAS to mean more character development... just has to. Even a few minutes extras worth. Based on X-2... and from what I hear about the DD director's cut (haven't seen yet) a longer film bodes A LOT better. 1:55 (no credits) or more and I am defnitely there opening weekend... 1:45 and I'll wait for some feedback.

[chaseter]

IMDB as well as this site said that X3 was 120 or something and that all turned out well.:o

[Spidey 2007]

I love how people keep acting like we're claiming runtime alone makes a better movie when we're obviously not. It is so totally a not smarmy way of misrepresenting our position to make it look ridiculous.

Sarcasm aside, I would be satisfied with 118 minutes. Maybe this film will have a chance at good pacing and character development, unlike X3.

lol yea i know matey. I still have faith in this either way, im really happy if the 118 turns out to be true. excites me a little more now... Just because i want the most out of this movie as i can get, i love watchin movies thinking "ahh theres another half hour to go!"

[FaT_tONle]

IMDB as well as this site said that X3 was 120 or something and that all turned out well.:o

Just when I thought I was in.... you pull me right back out.... :csad:

[CyclopsSummers]

Oh 1h58 if its true this runtime will make me very happy

[chaseter]

I love how people keep acting like we're claiming runtime alone makes a better movie when we're obviously not. It is so totally a not smarmy way of misrepresenting our position to make it look ridiculous.

Sarcasm aside, I would be satisfied with 118 minutes. Maybe this film will have a chance at good pacing and character development, unlike X3.
I again ask you to look at the top 10, even top 20 movies of all time and see how many are 90 minute flicks. Nearly all are over 2 hours. Most of those, along with box office success, are critical successes as well.

So yes, it seems movies over 2 hours are good movies and they do well. And if you think this is 118 minutes long you are living in a dream:o

[Downhere]

So yes, it seems movies over 2 hours are good movies and they do well. And if you think this is 118 minutes long you are living in a dream:o

To be fair, no one here knows with 100% certainty what the runtime will be. There's a strong chance it's well under 2 hours but the 118 minute runtime could turn out true, crazier things have happened.

[Deaths Head II]

I again ask you to look at the top 10, even top 20 movies of all time and see how many are 90 minute flicks. Nearly all are over 2 hours. Most of those, along with box office success, are critical successes as well.

So yes, it seems movies over 2 hours are good movies and they do well. And if you think this is 118 minutes long you are living in a dream:o

I would be pleasantly surprised if this was actually 118 minutes long. I'm still expecting somewhere around 90 until we get official word.

And being long doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Like I said, I'm worried about the pacing and character development. If they spend too much time on scenes similar to the ones in X3 like when Wolverine kicked that regenerating no-name mutant in the balls, the extra time isn't going to count for much.

[chaseter]

With Fox's record, the Donner clip, the amount of action...I bet this movie will be 105 minutes tops....and that is wishful thinking.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^What Donner clip?

[chaseter]

I would be pleasantly surprised if this was actually 118 minutes long. I'm still expecting somewhere around 90 until we get official word.

And being long doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Like I said, I'm worried about the pacing and character development. If they spent too much time on scenes like in X3 where Wolverine kicked that dude in the balls, the extra time isn't going to count for much.
X3's run time killed it. Having Wolverine, Deadpool, Emma Frost, Cyclops, Wraith, Sabretooth, Blob, Beak, the list goes on and on...in an ORIGIN movie means that this will suffer the same fate or feel rushed if this movie is around 90 minutes.

I can't say being long means that it will be good 100% of the time but I would say it does about 90% of the time. So...naturally I am on the side with a larger percentage and it is natural to be pessimistic towards this movie from what I have seen, heard, and know concerning Fox.

[chaseter]

^What Donner clip?
Where she said this movie is and I quote "waaaaaaaayyyyyy under two hours."

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

X3's run time killed it. Having Wolverine, Deadpool, Emma Frost, Cyclops, Wraith, Sabretooth, Blob, Beak, the list goes on and on...in an ORIGIN movie means that this will suffer the same fate or feel rushed if this movie is around 90 minutes.

I can't say being long means that it will be good 100% of the time but I would say it does about 90% of the time. So...naturally I am on the side with a larger percentage and it is natural to be pessimistic towards this movie from what I have seen, heard, and know concerning Fox.

:up: Sums up my feelings perfectly, so far they have ruined The Pheonix Saga and The Coming Of Galactus, 2 superb comic stories reduced to trashy movies with no character development and poor action scene's, cant see Wolverine surviving the same treatment.

Where she said this movie is and I quote "waaaaaaaayyyyyy under two hours."

Oh right, was thinking of Richard Donner for some reason!

[chaseter]

They are married:( Maybe Richard can slap some sense into that woman.

[EnDz0n3]

I still have not seen(?)/heard the clip but really what was she thinking saying that? :huh::whatever:

[Juggernaut33]

They are married:( Maybe Richard can slap some sense into that woman.

Fox is ontop of everything. She doesn't have access to the final cut. Donner should slap some sense into Tom Rothman, he is the real deal.

Oh and by the way BAD NEWS on imdb:

Runtime: 97 min (heavily cut)

Now THAT's f***ing alarming.

[chaseter]

Welp, party is over...97 minutes and heavily cut. Boycott this movie people.

[BMM]

LOL. It actually says "heavily cut." Either way, I don't trust IMDB at all.

[JP]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I love how that IMDB update goes out of it's way to show how fake it is, yet some of you believe it.

[chaseter]

I didn't trust their 118 minutes but this sounds more like it and goes in with the Donner quote and how Fox handles things.

[JP]

Yes, this film will be a typical Fox 90 minute extravaganza, but "97 (heavily cut)" is fabrication.

[FaT_tONle]

Where did the 97 minutes come from??? **** man... why do I keep believing these pricks will change.... WWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYY??? **** it... bootleg it is....

[Peter McCabe]

Welp, party is over...97 minutes and heavily cut. Boycott this movie people.

You think I would boycott this over a 97 minute running time???

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5776/nowayl.jpg

Not a chance.

[chaseter]

97 minutes, BarakaDeadpool, and this being a Fox production...yup I am boycotting this. It seems like they will never learn and fans will keep paying no matter what so maybe we are the ones at fault but not me this time.

[Peter McCabe]

97 minutes, BarakaDeadpool, and this being a Fox production...yup I am boycotting this. It seems like they will never learn and fans will keep paying no matter what so maybe we are the ones at fault but not me this time.

the problem here isn't FOX or any of us Wolverine maniacs that love Wolverine.

The problem I think is that you are putting too much stock into very debatable negative aspects to this film:

#1: I could care less if Deadpool is turned into a human alligator.

this is X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

#2: MAD MAX (Jackman favorite), The Road Warrior (Jackman favorite) and First Blood were all 94 minutes.

Those films are amongst my top 20 all time favorite movies.

*two of them were also Australian productions as is this one.

#3: This grudge with FOX is truly a product of nitpicking.

I HATED Punisher: Warzone but does that mean LGF is completely incapable of financing a decent film?

No.

You should look at the pros of this film, which clearly outweigh the cons (even though as I've explained - your cons are trivial).

Example (pro):

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6756/ww2a.jpg

[chaseter]

HAHA X3 looked amazing in its trailers so you posting screen caps doesn't prove anything. Look at how they have treated their super hero franchises, look at Babylon A.D., Kingdom of Heaven, and so many other films. There is a reason why directors say that they will never work for Fox again. There is a reason why critics pound Fox's movies. There is a reason why this film will be 90 minutes long. So yes...I have a grudge with Fox. If you want to keep paying for Tom Rothman to continue doing what he is doing, by all means support his ventures.

[Peter McCabe]

HAHA X3 looked amazing in its trailers so you posting screen caps doesn't prove anything. Look at how they have treated their super hero franchises, look at Babylon A.D., Kingdom of Heaven, and so many other films. There is a reason why directors say that they will never work for Fox again. There is a reason why critics pound Fox's movies. There is a reason why this film will be 90 minutes long. So yes...I have a grudge with Fox. If you want to keep paying for Tom Rothman to continue doing what he is doing, by all means support his ventures.

Once again.

You are approaching a fresh piece of meat with an agenda for a bad steak the restaurant gave you the last time you came to eat :cwink:

I keep posting shots because I'm trying to emphacize how all your dealbreakers for this film are just notions of disgust for the studio and really nothing to tarnish the actual product at hand.

Look at those frames.

When you do, you'll notice Tom Rothman, your assumption of 90 minutes being the equivalent of a terrible movie and the reality of Deadpool's change from comic to screen WILL ALL dissappear.

Just take a breath and approach this film free of grudges and things you want to indicate the film is bad.

*While you're at it, watch MAD MAX and tell me how terrible it is at 93 minutes.

[chaseter]

Once again.

You are approaching a fresh piece of meat with an agenda for a bad steak the restaurant gave you the last time you came to eat :cwink:

I keep posting shots because I'm trying to emphacize how all your dealbreakers for this film are just notions of disgust for the studio and really nothing to tarnish the actual product at hand.

Look at those frames.

When you do, you'll notice Tom Rothman, your assumption of 90 minutes being the equivalent of a terrible movie and the reality of Deadpool's change from comic to screen WILL ALL dissappear.

Just take a breath and approach this film free of grudges and things you want to indicate the film is bad.

*While you're at it, watch MAD MAX and tell me how terrible it is at 93 minutes.
Do you keep going back to a restaurant that continually serves bad food in hopes that they might go back to how they once were years ago:huh:

X3's trailer had amazing shots as well so posting screen shots from a trailer is moot as an indicator of quality. A short run time for an origin film stuffed with many characters is an indicator of quality.

[danoyse]

Let's quit the bickering over this, everyone. I think it's fair that anyone can have their own reasons for either wanting to see the movie, or not wanting to see it.

[FaT_tONle]

X-3 was an epic failure due to a complete studio take over to make a quick buck... if you guys just want to be entertained for an hour and a half with Hugh Jackman/Ryan Renolds badassness then I can't help you... I hope you enjoy the film in all honesty. I personally need more then that. I was so deeply offended by X-3 as an X-Men fan... that I just can not return to this franchise while it is still in Fox's hands. I can not support this garbage... no way in hell. It doesn't make me a better fan or anything... I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film fails. And that starts with not hyping it... I'll remove it from my sig once the runtime is confirmed.

[chaseter]

So has any other source besides IMDB listed a run time?

[Peter McCabe]

Do you keep going back to a restaurant that continually serves bad food in hopes that they might go back to how they once were years ago:huh:

Well I see your point and would normally agree, the problem is that there are too many variables at hand here.

We have a new cook in the restaurant (Jackman) that happens to be the co-owner as well and the new manager comes with great references (Hood).

X3's trailer had amazing shots as well so posting screen shots from a trailer is moot as an indicator of quality. A short run time for an origin film stuffed with many characters is an indicator of quality.

I myself was weary of this and to be honest with you - would have preferred a 3 hour film.

I see what Jackman is doing though, I see now [after the TV Spots] what kinda film he went out and made.

this is a classic revenger western that takes place during a post-western time and that is clearly using the elements of fantasy and science-fiction to draw in the masses.

the best example of that kinda film, prior to this, is Mad Max.

see I used to think the core of the film was the origin, but after seeing the spots it is clear to me that the conflict, the weapon x material is what drives the picture.

*once again, I would have preferred a longer film, or simply various films covering the various centuries of Wolverine's life.

but we're getting Jackman's ode to Mad Max and I like that alot :yay:

[chaseter]

Drop it, Danoyse has made that clear and she is the manager of the restaurant.

[Peter McCabe]

Drop it, Danoyse has made that clear.

so are we here to discuss things or just post rhetorical statements?

:whatever:

[chaseter]

so are we here to discuss things or just post rhetorical statements?

:whatever:
If you want to get prob. banned then by all means keep going:cwink:

[FaT_tONle]

I don't remember Mad Max being glittered with excessive cameos from other big time stars or notable characters... they kept it to what it was. Wolverine movie where half the shots in the trailer are involving other mutants... that will detract from anything similar to a Mad Max format. They're fooling you all... you guys want to see the film for five minute appearances from your favortie X-Men characters then you will surely get your money's worth.

[danoyse]

Drop it, Danoyse has made that clear and she is the manager of the restaurant.

And I would never give anyone a bad steak. :up:

[YJ1]

X-3 was an epic failure due to a complete studio take over to make a quick buck..

They made that buck and then some. Seems like a smart business decision to me. (Worldwide: $460 Million)

if you guys just want to be entertained for an hour and a half with Hugh Jackman/Ryan Renolds badassness then I can't help you... I hope you enjoy the film in all honesty.

Thanks for giving us your permission to enjoy the film.

I was so deeply offended by X-3 as an X-Men fan.

More then likely, I've been an X-Men fan longer then you and I'm deeply offended that you think you can speak for all fans.

I can not support this garbage... no way in hell. It doesn't make me a better fan or anything... I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film fails. And that starts with not hyping it... I'll remove it from my sig once the runtime is confirmed.

In your honor, I'm going to buy an extra ticket at full price. I WILL support this movie and yes, that DOES make me a better fan. I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film succeeds.

One thing's for sure, if I hated this movie and this franchise so much I certainly wouldn't be posting here every five minutes.

[Deaths Head II]

They made that buck and then some. Seems like a smart business decision to me. (Worldwide: $460 Million)

One can really make the argument that the film would have made that much regardless of Fox's decision to put it out early. Considering the hype X2 created, I never really doubted people would be eager to see X3.

And the main question is if they've hurt the longevity of the franchise. We'll have to see with this film if X-3 didn't cause much backlash. People could have easily been unimpressed with X3 but they already bought the ticket. So this film will probably show the future of the franchise as a best seller which is probably worth more to Fox then one good summer intake. Personally though I think it'll still sell well. But I don't know if it'll sell as well as X3 did after the interest generated by X2.

In your honor, I'm going to buy an extra ticket at full price. I WILL support this movie and yes, that DOES make me a better fan. I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film succeeds.

How does that make you a better fan? I agree that one shouldn't speak for all fans but I don't think you should make a value scale of fandom either.

[Daredevil_2003]

No X film has even come close to Batman and Robin, some of you guys are way too melodramatic about this. I'm a big X-Fan, despite my namesake it's my favorite Marvel property, and I thought X3 was a fine movie on it's own, little (ok more than a little :hehe:) lacking in the faithfulness to the original story arc dept, but I don't think it was a spit in the face by any means. Maybe if you're one of the legions of Cyclops fanboys I can understand, but it wasn't that bad...it wouldn't have been such a huge success if it was a terrible movie.

Like all 3 of the films released thus far, it could have been better, in X3's case a lot better, but that doesn't mean it's the pile of dung that the popular opinion around here gravitates to.

And all the bashing of the new movie when all we have is some short (very good, IMO) trailers and TV spots is just silly. Watch the damn movie first, for crying out loud...

[Spidey 2007]

No X film has even come close to Batman and Robin, some of you guys are way too melodramatic about this. I'm a big X-Fan, despite my namesake it's my favorite Marvel property, and I thought X3 was a fine movie on it's own, little (ok more than a little :hehe:) lacking in the faithfulness to the original story arc dept, but I don't think it was a spit in the face by any means. Maybe if you're one of the legions of Cyclops fanboys I can understand, but it wasn't that bad...it wouldn't have been such a huge success if it was a terrible movie.

Like all 3 of the films released thus far, it could have been better, in X3's case a lot better, but that doesn't mean it's the pile of dung that the popular opinion around here gravitates to.

And all the bashing of the new movie when all we have is some short (very good, IMO) trailers and TV spots is just silly. Watch the damn movie first, for crying out loud...

Thanks for writing all that for me haha.. i was going to write exactly that and i thought to myself.. god these people are just so dumb so im not gonna bother typing any kind of message.

but good job! thanks. its a movie, its hollywood, it will go on forever. we'll get another x-men movie, another x-franchise, another deadpool incarnation...

[danoyse]

I'm going to repeat this warning because obviously everyone isn't getting the message.

This is not the X3 forum. Anyone who wants to discuss X3 and what went wrong/right with that film can go here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=198

Furthermore, although you may have disliked X3, there is no reason to go bashing anyone who did. Nor is it acceptable to bash anyone who disliked X3. Showing disrespect to other posters over their opinion of X3 will not be tolerated.

Obviously, people have reservations about this film due to the way things went wrong with the last film (myself included), and that is fine.

But it's still perfectly acceptable for anyone who is still looking forward to Wolverine to be optimistic about it, and they shouldn't have to put up with the wrath of anyone still angry about the last film to tell them that they are wrong or that they will ultimately be disappointed.

So let's knock off the bashing and get back on topic. Thank you.

[FaT_tONle]

Just to continue the discussion we were having in the closed thread... re-posted these here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Microchip
The Runtime and THAT'S IT.

Exactly... too bad you get infractions in the runtime thread when you say this is the one problem that will drag this film down...

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeekness


I'm a little concerned about runtime as well, seeing as how it looks like they are going to cover a lot of time. I wonder if they are going to gloss over the whole Origin early parts and not give them their due. They could have made a whole movie from Origin alone. Now we have Origin, Weapon X, and Stryker all in an hour and half or so? I worry that some bits will be done too shallow to be believed.

Yeah the opening scene will probably be a good 5-10 minutes... then the flashbacks... another ten minutes... we won't really get into the story until 20 minutes in... coupled with the fact that we have 2-3 major cameos between Cyke, Emma, Gambit, Storm... that's another 10 minutes at least... so basically one hour of the actual weapons X story and the characters involved.

[echostation]

The action choreography looks a lot better in this film than the other films as both Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner left much to be desired in that department... It seems Jackman and Gavin Hood have done some really good work here in the trailers... I just hope hope hope the action scenes are great!

I did love that one part in the TV spot of Sabertooth chasing someone down while he's swinging and hanging from the walls

[danoyse]

Exactly... too bad you get infractions in the runtime thread when you say this is the one problem that will drag this film down...


That's not why you got an infraction. If you want to take that issue up with any of the mods, feel free to do so.

[FaT_tONle]

That's not why you got an infraction. If you want to take that issue up with any of the mods, feel free to do so.

I might just do that.

[Raiden]

The action choreography looks a lot better in this film than the other films as both Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner left much to be desired in that department... It seems Jackman and Gavin Hood have done some really good work here in the trailers... I just hope hope hope the action scenes are great!

I did love that one part in the TV spot of Sabertooth chasing someone down while he's swinging and hanging from the walls

I think he was chasing a young Cyclops.

[Figs]

Just to continue the discussion we were having in the closed thread... re-posted these here.

So why in the hell did the negative thread get close?

My only guess is people are too sensitive and biased and don't want people complaining about another Fox film.

[FaT_tONle]

So why in the hell did the negative thread get close?

My only guess is people are too sensitive and biased and don't want people complaining about another Fox film.

It is what it is... bad ratings on the Hype is my guess. Hell I was against the thread myself. But since some people can't allow appropriate discussions elsewhere... and not even allow a thread for all negative things... there is surely some bias there.

[Figs]

It is what it is... bad ratings on the Hype is my guess. Hell I was against the thread myself. But since some people can't allow appropriate discussions elsewhere... and not even allow a thread for all negative things... there is surely some bias there.


Personally, I think it would be better to have a negative thread much like the Negatron one they had back in the day for Transformers.

That way people who are disappointed with the film can go in there and discuss with each other what they don't like about it. The problem is the mods need to keep the people who do like the film from going in there just to start ****...not the other way around.

[danoyse]

So why in the hell did the negative thread get close?

My only guess is people are too sensitive and biased and don't want people complaining about another Fox film.

:whatever:

The "negative thread" was closed because the things being discussed in that thread can just as well be discussed in their individual threads rather then lumping them all together in one thread that will inevitably lead to endless bickering that will end up shutting down that thread anyway.

Of course negative discussion is allowed. There's plenty of it an nearly every thread on this forum, and it may continue as long as everyone can do it without attacking other posters in the process.

That was why Fat tONIe was infracted and his last post was deleted, not because he was being negative.

Once the movie has opened we will start a thread those who didn't like the film to discuss why they didn't like it. There's no need for a thread for that now.

[danoyse]

I might just do that.

Good. Then take it up with the mods and stop complaining about it here so we can get back on topic.

[Figs]

:whatever:

The "negative thread" was closed because the things being discussed in that thread can just as well be discussed in their individual threads rather then lumping them all together in one thread that will inevitably lead to endless bickering that will end up shutting down that thread anyway.

Of course negative discussion is allowed. There's plenty of it an nearly every thread on this forum, and it may continue as long as everyone can do it without attacking other posters in the process.

That was why Fat tONIe was infracted and his last post was deleted, not because he was being negative.

Once the movie has opened we will start a thread those who didn't like the film to discuss why they didn't like it. There's no need for a thread for that now.


No need for the eye roll smiley, what I said was truthfull and you see it everyday on any message boards.

For what I put in bold in your post. Well, that's good to hear. I just think that if you have too much complaining in the normal threads it's just going to start flame wars. I figured that a thread specifically for complaints would have worked better.

[danoyse]

The thread is gone. Just move on, people.

[WeaponXProject]

The action choreography looks a lot better in this film than the other films as both Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner left much to be desired in that department... It seems Jackman and Gavin Hood have done some really good work here in the trailers... I just hope hope hope the action scenes are great!

I did love that one part in the TV spot of Sabertooth chasing someone down while he's swinging and hanging from the walls


I thought the action in Singer's was pretty bad. Which is funny because I remember seeing and hearing "word" from a "Hollywood insider" that Fox said the action was terrible and a disaster. Remember? It was like 7 months ago...I already like the action in this movies trailers. The Wolvy/Sabes fight looks way better choreographed and the explosions look better with the Helicopter and Humvee but that could all be attributed to a bigger budget thing I guess...still though even X-2's action scenes were like Echostation said: "...left much to be desired..."

[Deaths Head II]

While the X-Films had some lacking fights, I thought Nightcrawler vs. the Secret Service was great. I do agree that Gambit vs Wolverine and Sabretooth vs Wolverine look more impressive then almost every other fight in the series though.

[Aluchak]

While the X-Films had some lacking fights, I thought Nightcrawler vs. the Secret Service was great. I do agree that Gambit vs Wolverine and Sabretooth vs Wolverine look more impressive then almost every other fight in the series though.

I concur.

[FaT_tONle]

No X film has even come close to Batman and Robin, some of you guys are way too melodramatic about this. I'm a big X-Fan, despite my namesake it's my favorite Marvel property, and I thought X3 was a fine movie on it's own, little (ok more than a little :hehe:) lacking in the faithfulness to the original story arc dept, but I don't think it was a spit in the face by any means. Maybe if you're one of the legions of Cyclops fanboys I can understand, but it wasn't that bad...it wouldn't have been such a huge success if it was a terrible movie.

Like all 3 of the films released thus far, it could have been better, in X3's case a lot better, but that doesn't mean it's the pile of dung that the popular opinion around here gravitates to.

And all the bashing of the new movie when all we have is some short (very good, IMO) trailers and TV spots is just silly. Watch the damn movie first, for crying out loud...

I wasn't saying X-3 or this film was or is going to be as bad as B & R. I don't think it is possible we will see another comicbook adaptation that bad again in our lifetimes. I just think that if people are going to support films that do not do the material or the characters justice... the studios will continue down the path of making films that while may be entertaining, may do the source material and the fans complete injustice. And if that path continues... I would expect that it will take another B & R type film for most fans to finally give up on the genre again. But by then, it will be too late. That was my point... just to clarify my statement earlier.

[chaseter]

Alright folks you better stop the X3 chatter and get back on topic.

Has anyone found another source for a run time?

[FaT_tONle]

Alright folks you better stop the X3 chatter and get back on topic.

Has anyone found another source for a run time?

It's probably a done deal at this point. I still wonder where the 97 minutes came from... probably including credits. Wouldn't suprise me.

[zeptron]

The fact that it says "Heavily cut" means its some douche who put it down....

[PWN3R]

97 minutes wouldn't really surprise anyone now would it? Jesus, this film was looking so good, but it has gone straight to hell since that Deadpool toy fiasco.

I really hope we all end up being terribly wrong, and this isn't another X3 in the making.
I sincerely mean that.

[Spidey 2007]

97 minutes wouldn't really surprise anyone now would it? Jesus, this film was looking so good, but it has gone straight to hell since that Deadpool toy fiasco.

I really hope we all end up being terribly wrong, and this isn't another X3 in the making.
I sincerely mean that.

Haha, I think it will be a better attempt to be honest. it COULD be still enjoyable and not completely worthless. But it does really put me off that i wont be watching this movie for evern 2 hours! I want alot of wolverine!

[zeptron]

Like I said this looks like some jerk's idea of stirring up spirits. Considering the fact that the issue of the running time has been discussed and re-discussed on this board, I think the "heavily cut" comment is a tad too inconvenient and on cue.

Quite frankly I'm sick of hearing this "the dvd will have the full version" bull which seems to accompany every film lately." Far too many films are doing that these days. And 97 minutes is too short for this film.

[chaseter]

Only the fans that peruse the net will know about it being cut down and double dipped but some will still pay to see the movie and buy 3 dvd's. The general audience is what they seem to be shooting for with the short run time but they continue to fail to see that the fans that go see this multiple times are what gives it good legs to continue to make a good profit.

[FaT_tONle]

The movie will open big... 60-70 mill... it will drop 60-70% the next week. 20-25 tops. It will definitely fall short of 150 IMO. I don't think the fan base will carry the film. X-3 made 100 mill OW... and it barely doubled that the rest of the summer is some weak competition if you ask me. It won't be enough for a sequel IMO. Any additional spinoffs will be dwarfed by future super films like Spidey, Avengers, Batman/DC heavy hitters that Fox will have to settle for non-summer releases and marginal profits. THey'll give up the rights sooner than later.

[Spider-Vader]

The thing that worries me about Marvel getting the rights is
A.) Will they wait for new movies?

B.) Will they keep it in the same continuity? (Maybe make X3 non-canon)

C.) Will they keep the same actors? Hugh is Wolverine & (though he looks like he may get raped) Reynolds looks like a pretty good Wade Wilson.

[Deaths Head II]

If Marvel got the license they would probably sit on it until after the Avengers is done and then reboot a few years down the line. I really wouldn't care that much because Fox isn't going to progress the story any further either way. Just spin offs and prequels. I wouldn't mind recasting but then again I never considered any of the casting choices to be definitive in any way. As a matter of fact only a few even felt even completely appropriate. I like Hugh but he just isn't Wolverine to me.

[sniktsnakt]

Same thing here. I love Hugh to death, but with the next reboot we need a more . . . *Wolverine* Logan. Short, hairy, and with a bad attitude. They try with the bad attitude, but Hugh's too pretty and good natured. He hasn't really pulled it off yet, even if he's been really good in his own right.

The next Wolverine could be better or worse. We'll have to wait a fair few more years and see.

As for continuity with these films . . . I could care less. If they reboot, I want an entire reboot.

[FrostBite]

If Marvel got the license they would probably sit on it until after the Avengers is done and then reboot a few years down the line. I really wouldn't care that much because Fox isn't going to progress the story any further either way. Just spin offs and prequels. I wouldn't mind recasting but then again I never considered any of the casting choices to be definitive in any way. As a matter of fact only a few even felt even completely appropriate. I like Hugh but he just isn't Wolverine to me.

Kelsey Grammer was born to play Beast.

[Deaths Head II]

Too bad he only got to do it for one film that probably won't get a sequel. Won't make that much of a difference if he was played by somebody else in Fox's prequels or a Marvel reboot.

[FrostBite]

Too bad he only got to do it for one film that probably won't get a sequel. Won't make that much of a difference if he was played by somebody else in Fox's prequels or a Marvel reboot.

Who knows? In a perfect world they'd just plug him in First Class as a prof. since Beast seems significantly older than the other X-Men. But... I doubt it. :csad:

[GuestStar2004]

the Xmen movies never really had alot of action, but the ones that do stick out in my mind are

X1. wolverine vs mystique

X2. Nightcrawler vs the Secret Service - this still gives me thrills XD

X2. wolverine vs Deathstrike - she pretty much owned his ass XD

that is all

[flavio_lebeau]

To be fair to this movie though, it doesn't really need that much time to tell an origin story. The reason X3 suffered so much was because we had 30 characters, 2 major plots, and less than 2 hours to develop all that. It's like a LOTR movie that had its time cut by half by the studio. Impossible to work.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If this movie ends up at 97 mins long, colour me as NOT going to see it, sorry butt Fox can kiss my big hairy arse if they want to keep pulling this trick. So if the movie is that long, consider it boycotted by me.

X-3 was an epic failure due to a complete studio take over to make a quick buck... if you guys just want to be entertained for an hour and a half with Hugh Jackman/Ryan Renolds badassness then I can't help you... I hope you enjoy the film in all honesty. I personally need more then that. I was so deeply offended by X-3 as an X-Men fan... that I just can not return to this franchise while it is still in Fox's hands. I can not support this garbage... no way in hell. It doesn't make me a better fan or anything... I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film fails. And that starts with not hyping it... I'll remove it from my sig once the runtime is confirmed.

:up: Couldnt agree more.

[Downhere]

If this movie ends up at 97 mins long, colour me as NOT going to see it, sorry butt Fox can kiss my big hairy arse if they want to keep pulling this trick. So if the movie is that long, consider it boycotted by me.

Where has it been reported that it will be 97 minutes? Is there a set runtime?

[alexlachiusa]

What's with this Nightcrawler VS the Secret Service crap?

Sniktbub tearing up the soldiers in the mansion is where it's at!

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Where has it been reported that it will be 97 minutes? Is there a set runtime?

A few pages back someone said it was on IMDB, not the most trustworthy source sure, but, with Fox, I could see this run-time being true.

[Secret_Riddle]

They made that buck and then some. Seems like a smart business decision to me. (Worldwide: $460 Million)



Thanks for giving us your permission to enjoy the film.



More then likely, I've been an X-Men fan longer then you and I'm deeply offended that you think you can speak for all fans.



In your honor, I'm going to buy an extra ticket at full price. I WILL support this movie and yes, that DOES make me a better fan. I just will do everything in my power to ensure this film succeeds.

One thing's for sure, if I hated this movie and this franchise so much I certainly wouldn't be posting here every five minutes.


To be honest this is a pretty immature post. You're just trying to make the OP angry by completely destroying his opinion while really offering no reasons as to "why" other then that you have more of a right to speak about X-Men because you're probably older. All the OP was stating was his opinion of the recent events from the perspective of a long time X-men fan.

Lmfao, but while you're at it buy a ticket in my honour to. I won't see a movie that's as bad or worse then X3 due to studio interference. The Super Hero genre is evolving past poorly constructed, scripted, and in most cases overly edited movies. I'm tired of seeing franchises like the X-Men not get the movies us fans deserve. I'll be watching when the critics chime in, but the running time is a pretty great sign of whats to come (based on past examples of course).

[CeeJay]

To be honest this is a pretty immature post. You're just trying to make the OP angry by completely destroying his opinion while really offering no reasons as to "why" other then that you have more of a right to speak about X-Men because you're probably older. All the OP was stating was his opinion of the recent events from the perspective of a long time X-men fan.

Lmfao, but while you're at it buy a ticket in my honour to. I won't see a movie that's as bad or worse then X3 due to studio interference. The Super Hero genre is evolving past poorly constructed, scripted, and in most cases overly edited movies. I'm tired of seeing franchises like the X-Men not get the movies us fans deserve. I'll be watching when the critics chime in, but the running time is a pretty great sign of whats to come (based on past examples of course).

Why are you here when all you're doing is being a cynical wang-head?

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE ...

Until you do, no use getting your panties in a bunch about it.

Running time isn't a crystal ball to magically tell us, "Oooh the movie will suck", or "Ooooh this movie is amazing".

We don't know either way.

Until it drops I'd rather at least be hopeful that it will be great instead of talking about it as if I edited the final cut.

[chaseter]

That is perfectly respectable to have your hopes high for this movie. I am just tired of being let down by this company that makes these awful superhero movies so I am going in with no hopes at all because it is better to be surprised than to be dissapointed IMO.:cwink:

But yes, if it is a shorter run time then it will more than likely be a mediocre film. As I have said, look at the top 20 movies of all time and see how many are 2 hours or over. With a 2 hour+ movie, you can explore the character and the plots more which is why longer movies are usually better....not 100% of the time but nearly.

[sniktsnakt]

Has anything more concrete been said after the post on imdb of a runtime of 97 minutes?

[dark_b]

Why are you here when all you're doing is being a cynical wang-head?

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE ...

Until you do, no use getting your panties in a bunch about it.

Running time isn't a crystal ball to magically tell us, "Oooh the movie will suck", or "Ooooh this movie is amazing".

We don't know either way.

Until it drops I'd rather at least be hopeful that it will be great instead of talking about it as if I edited the final cut.actually all short big budget FOX movies were bad IMO.
some people need to stop acting here like we made stuff up.

[narrows101]

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/11176/tcid/1

The best movie theater I’ve ever been to is the Arclight in Hollywood. If you live in Los Angeles and you’ve never been…seriously, you’re missing out. They have the best projection and sound of any movie theater and they even have a bar in the lobby. Trust me, I’ve seen a lot of movies at a lot of theaters and this one is the best.

And if you’re looking forward to either “Star Trek” or “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”, you’ve got another reason to love this theater. That’s because they’ve updated their website with both movies running times!

While rumors have been “Wolverine” would be closer to 90 minutes than two hours, according to the website, it’s exactly 120 minutes.

[icelemt38]

I like 120! Looks like Drew McWeeny (AICN/Moriarity) was right with what he said mid February when saying Donner's statements were wrong.

Neither of those statements appears to be accurate at the moment. The movie's current running time (and keep in mind, they are in post right now, mixing the reels, tweaking the ending, and things are still in flux to some extent) is pretty much right at two hours. Maybe a few minutes under.

[Downhere]

Ok, that's a big boost for the film if the runtime is 2 hours. That's perfect in my opinion and would make my excitement level increase.

[danoyse]

Hopefully that's true - it's just the runtime posted on the Arclight's website. I feel better when it's confirmed more *officially*.

[FaT_tONle]

Runtime has become a secondary factor for me now that I have seen this new complete footage... still looks choppy and edited as hell with way too many characters. Unless they scrap some of this footage I am out for good.

[Downhere]

Hopefully that's true - it's just the runtime posted on the Arclight's website. I feel better when it's confirmed more *officially*.

True, but they also have Star Trek's, if that one turns out to be true then I think we can believe the Wolverine runtime. Here's hoping it's 120 minutes.

[sniktsnakt]

2 hours sounds much better. Let's make it official, Fox, so we can start complaining about something less significant than runtime. ;)

[dark_b]

if FF2 and X3 fake news wouldnt happaen i would now 100% belive it.
but i learned my leasson. FOX would lie and realese fake news.

[sniktsnakt]

if FF2 and X3 fake news wouldnt happaen i would now 100% belive it.
but i learned my leasson. FOX would lie and realese fake news.

Fox hasn't released anything. That's why we're waiting for the stone to drop, one way or another.

Sure, I like to gripe about Fox as much as anyone, but this single website doesn't have any sources. Wait until they actually lie to pin it on them.

[WeaponXProject]

2 HOURS! F*** yeah! :word: I'm pumped...I want a comfirmation but I am pumped!

[Andreth]

ahh! This has to be true! :D

[WeaponXProject]

So I read the article on rotten tomato and it says Star Trek is 126 minutes but when you click the website link it says Star Trek is 140 minutes...hmmm...:csad:...may not be true.

[JDym]

Runtime has become a secondary factor for me now that I have seen this new complete footage... still looks choppy and edited as hell with way too many characters. Unless they scrap some of this footage I am out for good.

Right, judging the editing of a movie by its trailer is a fantastic idea.

[neemer5]

So I read the article on rotten tomato and it says Star Trek is 126 minutes but when you click the website link it says Star Trek is 140 minutes...hmmm...:csad:...may not be true.

It may be that its 140 end-to-end (with opening and closing credits), although screening time usually includes credits.

[chaseter]

A 2 hour run time is wonderful news. Lets hope it's true. But as someone said before...we have been lied to about the run time and since the film is still being edited...I don't see how the theatre would know the run time.

[Knives]

A friend of mine, who actually works in a movie theater, says hsi theater just got the confirmed run time for both Wolverine and Star Trek. He says Trek is 120 minutes and Wolverine is a pathetic 97 minutes. That includes credits. So take that for what you will. Expect a very short, rushed, chopped up movie.

[TheVileOne]

Remember, SHH reported a 2 and a half hour running time for X-men 3 right before it came out?

I still want to know what happened there.

[WeaponXProject]

A friend of mine, who actually works in a movie theater, says hsi theater just got the confirmed run time for both Wolverine and Star Trek. He says Trek is 120 minutes and Wolverine is a pathetic 97 minutes. That includes credits. So take that for what you will. Expect a very short, rushed, chopped up movie.

What theatre?

Because the report says Star Trek at 2 hrs and 6 minutes online and Wolverine at 2 hrs even...

Edit: Also IMDB reported that months ago, the 97 minutes thing, as they have reported Johnny Depp is in pre-production for Sin City 2 over a year ago and its still there. So you know how trustworthy their site is? MEH.

Hope your friend is wrong...

[Knives]

He works at a Regal owned theater. Trust me, I hope my friend is wrong. NOTHING would make me happier then a 2 hour Wolverine movie. But knowing FOX, I bet 97 minutes is exactly right. I wont reward thier butchery of this film with my money. Simple as that.

[dark_b]

Remember, SHH reported a 2 and a half hour running time for X-men 3 right before it came out?

I still want to know what happened there.ehhhh they(fox) lied :o

[TheVileOne]

Why would they do that?

And why does no one call them or SHH on it for that matter?

[The Original Bamfer]

I seriously doubt the Hype! would have lied about such information. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of different, "official" running times for The Last Stand - it was a mess.

[sniktsnakt]

. . . .

All this drama about the time length is exhausting.

[TheVileOne]

I seriously doubt the Hype! would have lied about such information. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of different, "official" running times for The Last Stand - it was a mess.

Yes there were, but a SHH moderator came on here and said they asked a direct contact at Fox and that's where the 2 and a half hour running time came from.

I don't believe the Hype lied, but I mean, just wondering what that was about and if the hype people said anything in response to Fox or what not.

[EnDz0n3]

I still havent figured out why Donner-Schuler would come out and say the movie is way under 2 hours? :huh:

How long has she been in this business and how long has she been working on films like these with rabid fans...True or not, she knew that statement would cause an uproar... :o

[Ace of Knaves]

Am I late to the party? The Arclight theater in Hollywood has updated it's website...Wolverine will be 120mins!!!!

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/11176/tcid/1

[chaseter]

Yeah you are late but I don't see how they would know the run time when they don't have a cut of the movie.

[Ace of Knaves]

But I don't think a cinema as prestigious as the Arclight would just pull it out of it's ass and claim it fact.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yeah you are late but I don't see how they would know the run time when they don't have a cut of the movie.

They probably do have a cut of the movie by this point.

[chaseter]

They probably do have a cut of the movie by this point.
Why would they have a cut 2 months before the release:huh:

[Juggernaut33]

Why would they have a cut 2 months before the release:huh:

They need a final cut 2 months prior to the film's release. Usually a film is lock, stock and barrel a month before the release's date. And they need a cut if they want to do the score, then the sound editing and finally the sound mixing.

[CyclopsSummers]

ehhhh they(fox) lied :o

They usually lie us :whatever: U know

[Spider-Vader]

I'm hoping this is true. It'll take a little of the Deadpool pain away.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yo Spider Vader haven't you been reading the DP thread?

This guy on IMDB (I know, but wait, hear me out!) who revealed a few days ago that Gambit was 100% getting his Cajun accent also revealed that Weapon XI-"barakapool" is NOT the final version of him. He says that after the damage he takes from Wolverine and Creed, plus being caught in the explosion/collapse of that water tower (the thing in the new trailer) his healing factor overloads, causing his body to reject the augmentations and triggering a mass degeneration of his body. Leading to a more traditional Deadpool by films end.

I know IMDB is not to be trust, I'm always going on about it. But I checked through his post history and he isn't one of those typical IMDB dick heads/BS spreaders. Add that to the fact that today he was proved right about his claim of Gambit having a Cajun accent it's very possible that he is telling the truth.

[Spider-Vader]

I just read it. Maybe Fox is learning.

I don't get why DD & the FF can get their costumes but not DP?

[Ace of Knaves]

I just read it. Maybe Fox is learning.

I don't get why DD & the FF can get their costumes but not DP?

Who knows? Maybe he will get it eventually. Apparently those reshoots in January were for the end of the film, maybe he is in full DP regalia by the very end?

[Spider-Vader]

Maybe a scene shortly into the credits of Wilson finding out he's lost his new powers besides the healing & teleportation. Then, he finds out he's even more scarred & puts on the costume.

3,000TH POST! w00t!

[Ace of Knaves]

Congrats :up:

[Spider-Vader]

Thanks. :D

[Theweepeople]

Am I late to the party? The Arclight theater in Hollywood has updated it's website...Wolverine will be 120mins!!!!

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/11176/tcid/1

Strange article. Steve talks about how great Star Trek will be with a 140 minute run time. Then 2 sentences later he admits that the actual run time is 126 minutes and arclight will be updating this information. Paramount and Abrahms both confirmed this run time last december so I'm not sure where arclight got this info from.

[sniktsnakt]

Am I late to the party? The Arclight theater in Hollywood has updated it's website...Wolverine will be 120mins!!!!

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/11176/tcid/1


!!!!

I really want to believe this.

How sure of this are we?

[Ace of Knaves]

Not very. But the Arclight is a very prestigious cinema in hollywood. Take from that what you want.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He works at a Regal owned theater. Trust me, I hope my friend is wrong. NOTHING would make me happier then a 2 hour Wolverine movie. But knowing FOX, I bet 97 minutes is exactly right. I wont reward thier butchery of this film with my money. Simple as that.

Same here, i'll just see it for free.

[Ace of Knaves]

Butchery of this film? Well how can you possibly tell that it's butchered until you see it?

[danoyse]

I find it hard to believe that any theater chain can confirm a final run time on this movie yet. Isn't it still being finished?

[Ace of Knaves]

I think all that is left to do now would be the SFX touch ups and what not.

[Secret_Riddle]

Why are you here when all you're doing is being a cynical wang-head?

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE ...

Until you do, no use getting your panties in a bunch about it.

Running time isn't a crystal ball to magically tell us, "Oooh the movie will suck", or "Ooooh this movie is amazing".

We don't know either way.

Until it drops I'd rather at least be hopeful that it will be great instead of talking about it as if I edited the final cut.

The movies confirmed to have had a troubled production, the producer claimed that the movie was way under 2 hours (and the story so far seems like it would need sufficiently longer), the movie is under development by FOX (a company with a terrible track record for bastardizing very good ideas and established franchises), and it's a sequel to one of the most disappointing comic movies ever. Like I said these are all signs. I didnt say running time was the sole reason for not being optimistic..if you thought that then I probably just wasn't clear enough.

Anyways I don't really like being told that my "panties" are in a knot and Im sure you wouldn't either (I wear boxers, so if anything its those that are knotted)..and I'm just keeping expectations in check for the above reasons (X-Men 3 forced me to adopt a realist stance towards most comic book movies..compiled with Spider-Man 3..although the Dark Knight is starting to reverse that trend)

If this Arclight cinema thing is true..it's a very good sign that hopefully the director has had more control over the cut of the movie. We'll see though. After X-Men 3, fox has to win me and a substantial amount of fans back, and on May 1st maybe they will.

And come on no one likes being called a wang head either..although cynicism is probably accurate:oldrazz:

[danoyse]

Let's not have any name-calling, please.

[Ace of Knaves]

The movies confirmed to have had a troubled production, the producer claimed that the movie was way under 90 minutes (and the story so far seems like it would need sufficiently longer), the movie is under development by FOX (a company with a terrible track record for bastardizing very good ideas and established franchises), and it's a sequel to one of the most disappointing comic movies ever. Like I said these are all signs. I didnt say running time was the sole reason for not being optimistic..if you thought that then I probably just wasn't clear enough.

Anyways I don't really like being told that my "panties" are in a knot and Im sure you wouldn't either (I wear boxers, so if anything its those that are knotted)..and I'm just keeping expectations in check for the above reasons (X-Men 3 forced me to adopt a realist stance towards most comic book movies..compiled with Spider-Man 3..although the Dark Knight is starting to reverse that trend)

If this Arclight cinema thing is true..it's a very good sign that hopefully the director has had more control over the cut of the movie. We'll see though. After X-Men 3, fox has to win me and a substantial amount of fans back, and on May 1st maybe they will.

And come on no one likes being called a wang head either..although cynicism is probably accurate:oldrazz:

Bolded; Errrr...wha?

[danoyse]

Bolded; Errrr...wha?

Lauren Shuler-Donner said during an interview that the movie was "well under 2 hours." Oddly, no one had heard from her since. :wow:

Someone from AICN also reported after that news that their source has heard that movie is going to be about 2 hours, and not the "way under" originally reported.

It's anyone's guess right now.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I remember Shuler saying that. He either made a typo or is deluded! :hehe:

And I think a 1 hr 45 mins runtime would be appropriate for this. The first X Men film was around that run time, and i thought it was brilliant. And in that one we had to be introduced to all the characters but it didn't feel over stuffed or whatever.

[sdc10]

Lauren Shuler-Donner said during an interview that the movie was "well under 2 hours." Oddly, no one had heard from her since. :wow:

Someone from AICN also reported after that news that their source has heard that movie is going to be about 2 hours, and not the "way under" originally reported.

It's anyone's guess right now.

If the movie is at least 1 hr 45 min then my excitement for this movie will def go back up. However as it stands judging from the same recycled shots in the trailers leads me to believe this may be on the shorter side. But nothing would make me happier than being wrong.

[Secret_Riddle]

Bolded; Errrr...wha?

typo meant to say under 2 hours:)

[TNC9852002]

Yeah, and also take into account that this movie only has like 3 or 4 primary characters and a handful of supporting characters, unlike the longer X2 which had almost more than double that amount.

I'm thinking 110 minutes still would be great.

-TNC

[LastSunrise1981]

Seems like the fanbase of Wolverine is experiencing the same dilemma that X3 had. No one knows the official runtime and there's so much drama, confusion, and uncertainty going around simply because of the fact that everyone knows the record of Fox.

In all honesty, I can see this film being 97 minutes. I doubt we'll ever get an official runtime for this film until its release date.

[TNC9852002]

Seems like the fanbase of Wolverine is experiencing the same dilemma that X3 had. No one knows the official runtime and there's so much drama, confusion, and uncertainty going around simply because of the fact that everyone knows the record of Fox.

In all honesty, I can see this film being 97 minutes. I doubt we'll ever get an official runtime for this film until its release date.
That seems slightly exaggerated to me. I mean, I really don't see what you're talking about here.

[danoyse]

That seems slightly exaggerated to me. I mean, I really don't see what you're talking about here.

Fox notoriously releases films that are far too short.

[LastSunrise1981]

That seems slightly exaggerated to me. I mean, I really don't see what you're talking about here.

As Danoyse stated, Fox has a reputation for releasing short films. I'll explain what I mean in a better fashion that way you'll know where I'm coming from.

As X3's release date got closer and closer issues with the running time came up. "Sources" close to Fox stated it was a 2hr and 20 minute movie if I'm not mistaken. Then eventually different run times started to come up and Fox was making up lies to ease the fans fears.

This situation is just reeking of the same situation simply because fans want a longer film and I agree with them. Personally, I feel Logan's origins and his journey demands a two hour film. It only makes sense in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if we look up one day and saw this film at 98 minutes.

[TNC9852002]

Notoriously short is a relative concept.

Surely it's been proven that other studios are very capable of releasing short films.

You're just picking on FOX because..

Well, you can.

[Downhere]

Notoriously short is a relative concept.

Surely it's been proven that other studios are very capable of releasing short films.

You're just picking on FOX because..

Well, you can.

In regard to comic book films, Fox has been the one to release the shorter ones.

[Ace of Knaves]

I reckon there will be a directors cut DVD anyway. Daredevil DC was like a whole new film, hopefully if this one is short, they follow suit.

[TNC9852002]

In regard to comic book films, Fox has been the one to release the shorter ones.
Shorter, eh? but is that "short"?

What's the average length? Is there a set standard?

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've never been completely convinced about this, aside from what happened with Daredevil.

[danoyse]

Notoriously short is a relative concept.

Surely it's been proven that other studios are very capable of releasing short films.

You're just picking on FOX because..

Well, you can.

No, he's right. Fox has a rep for releasing (too) short films. With X3, we first heard about the short run time when the movie was screening at Cannes. It listed the run time as 1:43, and there was some confusion as whether it was an hour and 43 minutes, or it was a misprint and the run time was actually 143 minutes (a few 'sources' claimed it was). 143 minutes really didn't look likely, but it was possible.

Then a mod started a thread saying they heard from a source that the movie was actually going to be about 2 hours 20 minutes long. I wasn't a mod then, so I don't know the backstory, but whatever they heard wasn't something that was made up.

Not sure what happened in the long run, only that we got a 1 hour, 43 minute movie. :down

And no one's complaining about Fox just to complain. Their track record speaks for itself. Their superhero movies are far to short and they meddle too much in the production process. No one can blame fans for not trusting Fox with their superhero films. Fox did that to themselves.

[Ace of Knaves]

I think 1hr 45min is a good time for this.

The first X-Men wasn't more than that, and I thought it was brilliant. It had to introduce new characters and a new universe but still seemed clear and not too jumbled and packed.

[WeaponXProject]

I think 1hr 45min is a good time for this.

The first X-Men wasn't more than that, and I thought it was brilliant. It had to introduce new characters and a new universe but still seemed clear and not too jumbled and packed.


It didn't seem short but it lacked action scenes...most were real short and this movie seems to be full of action so I hope it has enough time to tell his story as well.

[Ace of Knaves]

Good point.

[Theweepeople]

In regard to comic book films, Fox has been the one to release the shorter ones.

WB/New line cinema comic film run times
300 1hr 57min, Batman 1989 2hr 6min, Batman Returns 2hr 6min, Batman Forever 2hr 2min, Batman and Robin 2hr 2min, Batman Begins 2hr 20min, The Dark Knight 2hr 30min, Blade 2hr 0min, Blade 2 1hr 57min, Blade 3 1hr 54min, Catwoman 1hr 44min, Constantine 2hr 1min, A history of Violence 1hr 36min, Spawn 1hr 33min, Superman 2hr 23min, Superman 2 2hr 8min, Superman 3 2hr 5min, Superman IV 1hr 30min, Superman Returns 2hr 34min, TMNT 1hr 33min, TMNT 2 1hr 28min, TMNT 3 1hr 35min, V for Vendetta 2hr 11min, Watchmen 2hr 43min

Fox comic film run times
AVP1 1hr 27min, AVP2 1hr 26min, Daredevil 1hr 37min, Elektra 1hr 37min, Fantastic Four 1hr 46min, Fantastic four 2 1hr 29min, From Hell 2hr 2min, LXG 1hr 52min, X-Men 1hr 44 min, X-Men United 2hr 14min, X-Men The Last Stand 1hr 44min, Dragon Ball 1hr 30min

Disney/Miramax
The Crow 1hr 57min The Crow 2, 1hr 31min, Judge Dredd 1hr 36min, The Rocketeer 1hr 48min

Sony/Columbia
Ghost Rider 1hr 50min, Hellboy 1hr 52min, Men in Black 1hr 37min, Men in Black 2 1hr 28. Spider-man 2hr 1min, Spider-man 2 2hr 7min, Spider-man 3 2hr 20min

Universal
Hellboy 2 1hr 50min, Hulk 2hr 15min, The Incredible Hulk 1hr 54min, Timecop 1hr 39min, Virus 1hr 40min

Paramount
Iron Man 2hr 6min

Lions Gate
The Punisher 1hr 59min, Punisher War Zone 1 hr 47min,
The Spirit 1hr 48min

Dreamworks
Road to Perdition 1hr 59min,

Dimension Films
Sin City 2hr 5min

MGM
Tank Girl 1hr 43min, Bulletproof monk 1hr 43min


Of the companies I've listed the major comic book producing films studios are WB(#1), Fox(#2), Sony(#3). Warner Brothers clearly has the best ratio(70.8%) of comic film run times around 2 hrs per films produced. Sony has a very modest ratio(42.8%). That isn't good but, it's not bad considering the source material for most of their comics. Sony at least understood that their prized franchise(Spider-man) shouldn't be rushed.

Fox on the other hand has a dismal ratio(16.7%) for films with run times close to 2 hours. Fox's ratio is quite bizzare because it's clear that they understand that comic book filmmaking is a lucrative business or they wouldn't have acquired the rights to so many franchises. What's also strange is unlike some of the minor players in this business Fox acquired the rights to comics that are either iconic or have great source material.


As for the other companies who are minor players in this business there's really not much to comment on. Most of them have only acquired the rights to a few comics that are either unknown to mainstream audiences, or have mediocre to weak source material.

[chaseter]

Notoriously short is a relative concept.

Surely it's been proven that other studios are very capable of releasing short films.

You're just picking on FOX because..

Well, you can.
Puhlease:whatever:

[chaseter]

No, he's right. Fox has a rep for releasing (too) short films. With X3, we first heard about the short run time when the movie was screening at Cannes. It listed the run time as 1:43, and there was some confusion as whether it was an hour and 43 minutes, or it was a misprint and the run time was actually 143 minutes (a few 'sources' claimed it was). 143 minutes really didn't look likely, but it was possible.

Then a mod started a thread saying they heard from a source that the movie was actually going to be about 2 hours 20 minutes long. I wasn't a mod then, so I don't know the backstory, but whatever they heard wasn't something that was made up.

Not sure what happened in the long run, only that we got a 1 hour, 43 minute movie. :down

And no one's complaining about Fox just to complain. Their track record speaks for itself. Their superhero movies are far to short and they meddle too much in the production process. No one can blame fans for not trusting Fox with their superhero films. Fox did that to themselves.
Amen sister.


Buy me a drink!?

[JP]

Yeah, TNC are you serious? :huh:

[chaseter]

This isn't the first time...this has been discussed with him many times. It's fine if he truly admires Fox's line of products but I think he either works for Fox or is Tom Rothman:o

[danoyse]

Amen sister.


Buy me a drink!?

You can buy me one. :cwink:

[Sam Fisher]

I reckon there will be a directors cut DVD anyway. Daredevil DC was like a whole new film, hopefully if this one is short, they follow suit.Elektra and FF DCs weren't.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well Elektra couldn't ever be saved no matter what. And i haven't see the FF DC.

[Ace of Knaves]

To be fair, run time doesn't ALWAYS indicate the quality of a film. I don't think the run time thing would be a problem if the films were actually any good. If Fantastic Four was a good film, Dr Doom was Dr Doom for instance i dont think there woudl be a problem

[X-Maniac]

Elektra and FF DCs weren't.

The Elektra extended cut is only a few seconds longer, with fight scenes that are more violent, as far as i am aware.

The extended FF is much better, despite a couple of oddities. It did make an entertaining but average film a bit better, for sure.

[chaseter]

You can buy me one. :cwink:
meow:meow:

[chaseter]

To be fair, run time doesn't ALWAYS indicate the quality of a film. I don't think the run time thing would be a problem if the films were actually any good. If Fantastic Four was a good film, Dr Doom was Dr Doom for instance i dont think there woudl be a problem
No it doesn't always but I would say run time affects a movie more so than not at all. A longer movie has room to breathe, provide more depth, and allow more liberties while a shorter time constricts everything. No not every 90 minute movie sucks but there are better and more successful films over 2 hours when compared to 90 minute flicks.

[sniktsnakt]

^Yup. With all of these characters and what they have to cover in Wolverine's past, the blanket would have to be stretched extremely thin if the time length is only 90 minutes or so.

[Jick09]

2 hours is perfect, for me.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but sometimes a overly long film can be just as negative as a short film you know what i mean?

[chaseter]

I know what you mean but how many times have you said that a movie was too long as compared to a movie that was too short? Especially with movies that contain our favorite superheroes? 9 times out of 10, I would say a 2 hour + movie is better than a 90 minute movie critically and commercially.

[Sam Fisher]

Well, some people say TDK was too long.

[Ace of Knaves]

I know what you mean but how many times have you said that a movie was too long as compared to a movie that was too short? Especially with movies that contain our favorite superheroes? 9 times out of 10, I would say a 2 hour + movie is better than a 90 minute movie critically and commercially.

Fair points.

But what I'm trying to say is that you can't really judge a film and say it is too short before you have seen it. Yea if they come out and say it's going to be barely 90 minutes or whatever, the signs don't look good. But really, we don't know for certain yet, not to the degree to completely right it off.

I know Wolverine has a very interesting, century spanding story to tell, but it all depends on the execution and how it is compressed. You could say Wolverines entire origin could make for a 3 hour long film. But that could feel too spaced out and stretched. Whereas compressing it down into 1hr 45 minutes or so(which i hope) could make it actually more entertaining and not long winded.

I'm a massive fan of TDK as you all know. But even i thought that in parts, it got way too long winded.

[narrows101]

I think it all depends on your fan point of view. Since I'm a massive Hugh fan, nothing he would be in is too long for me. A lot of people thought his movie "Australia" was too long at 2:45 but I absolutely loved it. And while I like comic book movies, I'm less of a fan if Hugh isn't in it and I thought TDK was too long. So I think it's all your perspective and what you want to see/how the movie is playing out.

[X-Maniac]

I would expect the film to be around or just over two hours if it is to do justice to all of Wolverine's backstory and the number of other characters.

TDK felt the right length and so did Watchmen. The X-movies all have pacing/length issues, they don't feel 'complete'.

[Ace of Knaves]

I felt that some scenes dragged so much in TDK. After repeated viewings I now get bored pretty easily. I find myself thinking "Just ****ing get on with it already!!!". In some cases it seemed they went the long way round of explaining something just to make it seem more intellectual.

[X-Maniac]

I felt that some scenes dragged so much in TDK. After repeated viewings I now get bored pretty easily. I find myself thinking "Just ****ing get on with it already!!!". In some cases it seemed they went the long way round of explaining something just to make it seem more intellectual.

Must admit i got bored watching TDK at home, I paused it just after the truck thing tips over, then i switched off and couldn't be bothered to watch the rest!

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I find myself doing that when i watch it now. I watch it all up to the part where Harvey is in hospital and Joker escapes in the cop car. I personally think they could of ended the movie there and saved Harvey actually turning into Two Face and more plots from the Joker for the next one.

[chaseter]

I would expect the film to be around or just over two hours if it is to do justice to all of Wolverine's backstory and the number of other characters.

TDK felt the right length and so did Watchmen. The X-movies all have pacing/length issues, they don't feel 'complete'.
I agree...and look at the critical reviews if you want further validation on short movies. To even further that, look at the box office take. Longer movies generally make more money most of the time because they are better films. Look at all the superhero movies made if you want a real comparison. Most of the ones that did good at the B.O. and did good critically are not short films.

[chaseter]

I felt that some scenes dragged so much in TDK. After repeated viewings I now get bored pretty easily. I find myself thinking "Just ****ing get on with it already!!!". In some cases it seemed they went the long way round of explaining something just to make it seem more intellectual.
Sorry but I would rather feel like I saw more than I wanted to like with TDK than feel like I didn't see enough and dissapointed like I was with X3, FF 1&2, etc...

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but looking at TDK now, after watching it so many times, I think they should of ended it with Joker escaping and Harvey ending up in hospital.

[chaseter]

Yea but looking at TDK now, after watching it so many times, I think they should of ended it with Joker escaping and Harvey ending up in hospital.
You can have that opinion but mind you are in the vast minority on that. People would have *****ed that it didn't have resolution and that cliff hangers suck. Plus Heath died and the next one would have really sucked.

Once again, I am not saying this movie will definitely suck if it is around 90 minutes but I would say I am about 90% sure it will if it is around 90 minutes. And if that is the case, this movie will not get my money.

[stardust]

I felt that some scenes dragged so much in TDK. After repeated viewings I now get bored pretty easily. I find myself thinking "Just ****ing get on with it already!!!". In some cases it seemed they went the long way round of explaining something just to make it seem more intellectual.
I felt the same about scenes dragging, and I got the same feeling while watching Watchmen, but I don't think we have to worry about that with Wolverine.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea. I know Wolverine has a very interesting and long history. But to be honest, I think it's pretty clear this is just going to be a explosive action movie. Not a in depth study on him. And apparently they want to further explore his origins with a Japan movie. So it isn't as though they are trying to cram his WHOLE origin into one movie.

[chaseter]

But this isn't ONLY about Wolverine. When you toss in supporting characters and tons of cameos...something has to suffer in a short movie. Especially when a good chunk of the time is spent fighting and exploding things.

[Ace of Knaves]

I understand that. I don't like pointless cameos. If I was in charge of this film the only other characters involved would be the ones with links to Weapon X.

But the way this adaptation seems, Weapon X/Stryker hunting down mutants to create the ultimate, obediant mutant, all these other cameos could make sense in context with the story. And it could be pretty cool. See, the way I look at it, this film is all about Weapon X really, and what they do, what they are about. It just so happens that Wolverine is the main experiment and most recognizable character from Weapon X.

People have gotta remember it isn't a straight from the comics film. It has parts of the comics mish mashed into a whole new universe. It isn't the 616, it isn't the ultimate universe. It's the movie universe

And anyway, as I said, this movie is probably not going to be the only movie based on Wolverines history/origin. Maybe they make 2 or 3 films about him, and when they are all finished we look at them as one film?

[icelemt38]

Well IMDB's runtime for the movie is back to 120 minutes, lol. Just proves how unreliable IMDB is.

[chaseter]

Aunt Carnage for SM3!!!

[TNC9852002]

Yeah, we need SOOO much extra time to fit in all of those cameos... :p

All 3 of them. :p :o

-TNC

[zeptron]

Well IMDB's runtime for the movie is back to 120 minutes, lol. Just proves how unreliable IMDB is.

Yeah I don't think we will truly know the runtime until it comes out in cinemas because of the reshoots and who knows what's going on at the moment. Are they still in the editing room?

[TheVileOne]

People call TDK too long when the movie makes over $530 million US, over $1 billion worldwide, and is the first comic book movie ever to win an award for an acting performance.

People call ROTK too long when it made over $375 million and won 11 Academy Awards, it won every award it was nominated for. It's the most winning Oscar movie of all time.

Fox does butcher and undercut the comic book movies. This is a fact. X-men, X-men 3, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Daredevil, all of them. The only time so far it was different was for X-men 2 because Singer wanted a longer movie and he knew the fans wanted a longer movie as well.

What are the biggest success stories? Umm: Spider-man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, X-men 2, Spider-man, and Iron Man. All over two hours long.

Not every movie has to be a two and a half hour epic like The Dark Knight or Watchmen or whatever. But gives these movies the time and respect they deserve.

This is a movie that aims to incorporate so many different and vast parts of Wolverine's history you can't ****ing cover it in 90 minutes.

[TheVileOne]

edit, dp.

[Kahran Ramsus]

If Dark Knight ended with Harvey in the hospital and Joker escaping, I would have been extremely annoyed. That would have been half a movie. The entire story comes together in the final act. It is nothing without it.


What are the biggest success stories? Umm: Spider-man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, X-men 2, Spider-man, and Iron Man. All over two hours long.

I would add Superman: The Movie (143 minutes) and Batman (126 minutes) to that list.

Sony has a very modest ratio(42.8%). That isn't good but, it's not bad considering the source material for most of their comics. Sony at least understood that their prized franchise(Spider-man) shouldn't be rushed.

Sony gets it right more often then you give them credit for. That number is skewed because of the Men in Black films, which are an example of films that shouldn't be 2 hours long. As primarily comedies, it becomes difficult to keep the audience's attention for that length of time. It worked for the first film. The second sucked in spite of it.

So FOX is even worse in comparison to the other studios than they initially appear.

[TheVileOne]

We aren't talking about stuff like MIB.

All the Spider-man films were over two hours long.

The new Batman movies were well over two hours.

Watchmen was over 2 and a half hours.

Iron Man was over two hours.

Also, Jon Favreau talked about Iron Man being 90 minutes, 1 hour 45 minutes at first but then saw that fans wanted a longer movie and we ended up with a 2 hour plus movie.

[Kahran Ramsus]

We aren't talking about stuff like MIB.

All the Spider-man films were over two hours long.

The new Batman movies were well over two hours.

Watchmen was over 2 and a half hours.

Iron Man was over two hours.

I know. I was just pointing out that Sony's percentage of long comic book films were poor soley because of the MIB films, which I feel should be excluded since they are a different type of film.

The end result is that FOX's track record is terrible and they shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt until they earn it. As it is, it is more accurate to assume that whatever they make will be awful unless there is some indication that it isn't. If you send out a pinch hitter with .100 batting average in baseball, he might get a hit, but you'd be a fool to expect it. It is the same thing with FOX.

[TheVileOne]

Fox is like Keith Jardine. Pathetic weak sauce leg kicks.

[Bubastis]

I'm gonna guess 1 Hour and 35 minutes by mandate of 20th Century F**ks

[Ace of Knaves]

Doesn't anyone realize that they are not covering Wolverines WHOLE history in this film? Just his relationship with Creed in the past and his Weapon X days.

And I was one of the biggest TDK fans on this board. But the fact is it is boring, it is too long winded in places. They take the long route to get round things just to make it seem more intellectual than it is. This is the structure of TDK

Action scene-action scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-action/suspense scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-action/suspense scene-talking scene-talking scene-action scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-suspense scene-talking scene-talking scene-talking scene-action scene...

Ok you get the picture. And that is obviously a simplified way of looking at it. But for a 2 and half hour long comic book film and there is actually only about 30 mins of action that is ****ing annoying and it drags, simple as that.

And it's not because i just like action movies. I like all kinds of movies.

The fact is when I go to see a X Men movie or in this case a Wolverine movie I want to see some ****ing balls to the wall action, i want it to be fast paced, i want it to be explosive. I don't want a long winded, cerebral drama/thriller. That is not what Wolverine is about.

As long as it has a good story and some bad ass action I will be happy.

But saying all that, I think 1hr 45 minute mark is just right.

[chaseter]

You are beginning to grasp at straws Knaves.

[Ace of Knaves]

Ay? Grasp at what straws? The fact is a Wolverine film based on only PART of his history/origin doesn't need to be over 2 hours long. If they wanted to cover everything, sure, it should be a 3 hour long epic. But they are not.

This is just about his early relationship with Creed and his Weapon X days. Fact.

And my I'm not gonna back down about my opinion of TDK. It is a great film, but too long winded and thinks it is more intellectual than it actually is. I don't want that to happen to a Wolverine film. It should be a story driven action film first, a cerebral, long winded, intellectual thriller last.

Would I WANT a 2 hour long Wolverine film? Yes, I would

Does a Wolverine film that only covers this part of his history absolutely require a 2 hour long film? No, it doesn't

[WeaponXProject]

Ace I agree with you in some ways but I can't lie about this much. The movie is a two character focus about the relationship of two brothers. A character story, which is what Hugh and Gavin Hood has described the movie as, is not going to be mindless action. The dramatic story that they have together can't be explained with just explosions and claws. There is more. Dialogue and development is imperative to this story, especially with what the director and producer have described it.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I'm not denying that man.

I said it should be a story/character driven action film. Of course there should be time to explore the relationship between these two brothers. I like that is will be like that. It plays up the feeling that "love and hate" are divided by a very, very fine line.

But what i am saying is that it doesn't need to be over 2 hours long. There is no need IMO. I don't want this film to drag on like TDK. When I watch TDK now i find myself skipping to the Joker scenes or the Harvey Dent scenes or the action scenes. The rest of it is sooooo long winded. And not even necessarily so. It is long winded just to seem more intellectual.

What i mean is i don't want Wolverine to fall into that trap. Think it is cleverer than it really is. Because it doesn't need to be.

[WeaponXProject]

The only parts where TDK dragged to me was Bruce trying to find the bullet print, the scenes early with Gordan and Harvey, and some few other scenes. The reason it was so great was the story, not the action. The action was okay, in my opinion, compared to most action movies.


I'm still saying 2 hours.

[Ace of Knaves]

Hmmm I suppose it's because i have seen TDK too many times now. But i really do find it boring in some places.

Yea for me anything between 1hr 45mins and 2 hrs is perfect.

Maybe when they make a film of the japanese saga and if they make a film of his time in alpha flight we could look at all 3 as one, 5-6 hour long epic movie you know?

[Pauluz]

If Wolverine is going to be 90 minutes, I'm not going to the theaters.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah I don't know who is asking for a 2:30 hour TDK epic... but we need a film that pushes two hours minimum. Look at TIH... you add some of those deleted scenes and it would have been a better film. And it STILL was 1:55... and it STILL felt choppy and edited. And that wasn't even an origin movie. People need to think about this stuff. What movie do you really want? X-Men:TLS where everything just moves from one scene to the next and compromises story and integrity left and right? I think I will pass.

[Ace of Knaves]

Na I don't want that, of course not.

But I don't want it to be too long winded. To be too broken up you know? Like it has been stretched out just for the sake of it.

[chaseter]

Ay? Grasp at what straws? The fact is a Wolverine film based on only PART of his history/origin doesn't need to be over 2 hours long. If they wanted to cover everything, sure, it should be a 3 hour long epic. But they are not.

This is just about his early relationship with Creed and his Weapon X days. Fact.

And my I'm not gonna back down about my opinion of TDK. It is a great film, but too long winded and thinks it is more intellectual than it actually is. I don't want that to happen to a Wolverine film. It should be a story driven action film first, a cerebral, long winded, intellectual thriller last.

Would I WANT a 2 hour long Wolverine film? Yes, I would

Does a Wolverine film that only covers this part of his history absolutely require a 2 hour long film? No, it doesn't
You thinking of ways to justify a 90-something minute runtime is grasping at straws. I can't knock you for being an optimist but as a realist myself, this is all just pointless. If the movie is near or over 2 hours, then this movie might be good. If it is 90-something minutes then it more than likely won't be. Not saying it won't for sure as I haven't seen it but I doubt it. Once again, I would rather feel like a movie was too long than one that felt way too short. And it was sad to see America moving in the direction for shorter films a few years ago but thank God most of the studios are bringing back or have brought back the epic and long film.

But, you thinking it was too long is your opinion which nearly all of critics and fans disagree with you on...which is fine as we all have an opinion.

[Ace of Knaves]

You thinking of ways to justify a 90-something minute runtime is grasping at straws. I can't knock you for being an optimist but as a realist myself, this is all just pointless. If the movie is near or over 2 hours, then this movie might be good. If it is 90-something minutes then it more than likely won't be. Not saying it won't for sure as I haven't seen it but I doubt it. Once again, I would rather feel like a movie was too long than one that felt way too short. And it was sad to see America moving in the direction for shorter films a few years ago but thank God most of the studios are bringing back or have brought back the epic and long film.

But, you thinking it was too long is your opinion which nearly all of critics and fans disagree with you on...which is fine as we all have an opinion.

Who ever said I wanted a 90 minute film?

I said aounrd 1hr45minutes would be ok, so that's the minimum i want really. Of course i would love it to be a 2hour film, but i ain't gonna completely write it off if it ain't you know. But i would be pretty pissed off.

And about TDK. I think it's because i watched it too many times. I do still think it's a briliant film