The Run Time Length Thread

[Spider-Vader]

I think if it's around X1's time length or even better, X2's length I'll be happy.

[TheVileOne]

Considering that the trailer and SDCC footage features clips that reference the Origin comics and Wolverine fighting in multiple wars, its not just about his history with Creed.

[Ace of Knaves]

I doubt the wars will be featured for more than 20 minutes. 10 minutes each war or something.

And his history with Creed is the wars, he was at war with him.

[TheVileOne]

Why does that still mean the movie should be less than two hours?

[Mr Writer1981]

If it's going to be epically violent and romantic - as the Fox synopsis promises - you would hope for at least 2hrs. Let's hope that talk of 120 minutes at the Arclight is true. Please please please please...

[Ace of Knaves]

Why does that still mean the movie should be less than two hours?

Well it should be 2 hours, but I'm just saying that if it's not 2 hours, it isn't the end of the world, it doesn't automatically make it a bad film. Why is everyone so negative about this movie? I don't think i've ever seen so much negativity around a movie before.

[BMM]

Well it should be 2 hours, but I'm just saying that if it's not 2 hours, it isn't the end of the world, it doesn't automatically make it a bad film. Why is everyone so negative about this movie?

A lot of people feel burned by the studio producing this movie, especially given the last installment of the X-Men franchise or the treatment of the franchise as a whole.

[Ace of Knaves]

Hmm yea well that's fair enough. But I still try to think positive.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I used to do that as well, but Fox kept just throwing it back in my face like the mother****ers they are.

[protocida]

People forget that Fox also made "X1" and "X2".

[Peter McCabe]

Well it should be 2 hours, but I'm just saying that if it's not 2 hours, it isn't the end of the world, it doesn't automatically make it a bad film. Why is everyone so negative about this movie? I don't think i've ever seen so much negativity around a movie before.

awesome post http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

here's hoping we get a sequel! :yay:

[TheVileOne]

People forget that Fox also made "X1" and "X2".

So? Should they get a medal?

You are forgetting the adamant and hardworking people that made those movies excellent despite Fox. And when a lot of those guys left, look what happened to X-men 3.

Sorry, but no cigar.

[Peter McCabe]

So? Should they get a medal?

You are forgetting the adamant and hardworking people that made those movies excellent despite Fox. And when a lot of those guys left, look what happened to X-men 3.

Sorry, but no cigar.

what happened was that it made alotta money. more money than the first two.

my biggest issue with people who speak of X3 as an epic failure on behalf of Fox is that the film did its job: MAKE MONEY.

it didn't please comic book fans and because they are a tiny box office percentage, no one cares.

at least no one in Hollywood.

*same thing can be applied to deadpool, now that people are going insane over the changes made to him.

the fans will complain, but the studio will still give reynolds a film with blades coming out of his arms and lasers out of his eyes.

and I'm okay with that :yay:

[TheVileOne]

what happened was that it made alotta money. more money than the first two.

By pure numbers alone it didn't since the movie cost twice as much as X-men 2, and about three times as much as X-men.

my biggest issue with people who speak of X3 as an epic failure on behalf of Fox is that the film did its job: MAKE MONEY.

Fantastic Four which made money and then we got stuck with a ****** sequel and now Fox doesn't want to make anymore sequels and wants to "reboot" it. Fantastic Four says hello.

Show me the statistics that says X-men 3 made more money by pure profit alone when it still cost so much more than either of the first two.

it didn't please comic book fans and because they are a tiny box office percentage, no one cares.

at least no one in Hollywood.

Critics that loved X-men and X-men 2 poorly rated X-men 3 as well. So it wasn't just this tiny percentage of comic fans either.

Sure it had a huge opening weekend, but the huge second weekend drop means that the rest of the mainstream audience wasn't that hot on it either. Something else you will ignore.

Iron Man, Spider-man, and Spider-man 2 didn't suffer from dropoffs that terrible.

*same thing can be applied to deadpool, now that people are going insane over the changes made to him.

the fans will complain, but the studio will still give reynolds a film with blades coming out of his arms and lasers out of his eyes.

and I'm okay with that :yay:

That's fine. A lot of people like you were OK with the trash that happened in Fantastic Four. And now Fantastic Four is a DEAD franchise that Fox has no intention of making sequels or a Silver Surfer movie anymore. You know the movie that was supposed to actually show us Galactus?

Dragon Ball Evolution? You are probably ok with that trash too.

[Sam Fisher]

By pure numbers alone it didn't since the movie cost twice as much as X-men 2, and about three times as much as X-men.



Fantastic Four which made money and then we got stuck with a ****** sequel and now Fox doesn't want to make anymore sequels and wants to "reboot" it. Fantastic Four says hello.

Show me the statistics that says X-men 3 made more money by pure profit alone when it still cost so much more than either of the first two.



Critics that loved X-men and X-men 2 poorly rated X-men 3 as well. So it wasn't just this tiny percentage of comic fans either.

Sure it had a huge opening weekend, but the huge second weekend drop means that the rest of the mainstream audience wasn't that hot on it either. Something else you will ignore.

Iron Man, Spider-man, and Spider-man 2 didn't suffer from dropoffs that terrible.



That's fine. A lot of people like you were OK with the trash that happened in Fantastic Four. And now Fantastic Four is a DEAD franchise that Fox has no intention of making sequels or a Silver Surfer movie anymore. You know the movie that was supposed to actually show us Galactus?

Dragon Ball Evolution? You are probably ok with that trash too.It's funny how you people hate Fox so much yet yoju watch their movies. If you hate them so much, don't support them by seeing their movies. Don't support them by buying a ticket. Don't support them by sneaking into one of their movies. Don't support them by waiting for the DVD. In fact, if you automacally think this movie will suck, why are you posting in the Wolverine section at all? I stay out of threads about stuff I don't like. What you need to understand, is that there are people who like these movies, wheather it Bleeped up the comic or not.


I already know you and others will give crap for this, but that is to be expected.



End of rant.

[Peter McCabe]

By pure numbers alone it didn't since the movie cost twice as much as X-men 2, and about three times as much as X-men.

from what i've read it cost around 210 million and brought in 235 domestically alone. add worldwide numbers and you've got a hell of a profit.

Fantastic Four which made money and then we got stuck with a ****** sequel and now Fox doesn't want to make anymore sequels and wants to "reboot" it. Fantastic Four says hello.

Fantastic Four and ROTSS were aimed at PG audiences. That's why they're regarded as low quality comic book movies, specially when you compare them to the X Trilogy, The Spider Man Trilogy and The Burton/Nolan Batman films.

Critics that loved X-men and X-men 2 poorly rated X-men 3 as well. So it wasn't just this tiny percentage of comic fans either.

true, but you must admit the comic community is microscopic when it comes to box office numbers.

Sure it had a huge opening weekend, but the huge second weekend drop means that the rest of the mainstream audience wasn't that hot on it either. Something else you will ignore.

Yes I will ignore that because you can't just say "The weekend opening was great, but so what?"

The weekend opening was great and that alone solidifies the film's box office prowess.

*I believe its the 5th highest weekend opening of all time

Iron Man, Spider-man, and Spider-man 2 didn't suffer from dropoffs that terrible.

that's because they are in my opinion superior comic book movies, hence the $300+ million domestic numbers.

Dragon Ball Evolution? You are probably ok with that trash too.

I will not be watching that movie, but I will watch a movie that merits my attention despite carrying the FOX logo behind it.

[TheVileOne]

It's funny how you people hate Fox so much yet yoju watch their movies. If you hate them so much, don't support them by seeing their movies. Don't support them by buying a ticket. Don't support them by sneaking into one of their movies. Don't support them by waiting for the DVD. In fact, if you automacally think this movie will suck, why are you posting in the Wolverine section at all? I stay out of threads about stuff I don't like. What you need to understand, is that there are people who like these movies, wheather it Bleeped up the comic or not.

I don't. I never even saw Fantastic Four in theatres. I'm definitely not going to see Dragon Ball. And honestly, I'm not even that excited about Wolverine.

So don't claim you know me and you know my viewing habits.

[Sam Fisher]

I don't. I never even saw Fantastic Four in theatres. I'm definitely not going to see Dragon Ball. And honestly, I'm not even that excited about Wolverine.

So don't claim you know me and you know my viewing habits.Err? I "claimed" to know your vieing habits? Well, it sure does say something to your "viewing habits" that you thought FF sucked and watched the sequel anyway.

[TheVileOne]

I had my reasons, but I didn't enjoy it. So whatever. That doesn't support your weak and flimsy argument.

[The Original Bamfer]

I'd say we can manage to contribute to a discussion/argument and be respectful at the same time, right?

[Sam Fisher]

I had my reasons, but I didn't enjoy it. So whatever. That doesn't support your weak and flimsy argument.Weak flimsy? Doesn't make me or you right or wrong. Whatever. The point I was trying to make was if you don't like Fox, don't support them.

[TheVileOne]

I DO NOT FREAKING SUPPORT THEM! STOP ACTING LIKE I DO DAGNABBIT!

Just a hint. That awful FF sequel is one of the reasons I don't. X-men 3 is another. Dragon Ball is another. I, Robot and what they did to Alex Proyas is another. LXG is another. I never paid to see LXG in theatres either. Fox hates creative talents and ran them away from the studio. They butcher movies to create 90 minute garbage and they ended up with a summer of bombs in 2008.

[chaseter]

what happened was that it made alotta money. more money than the first two.

my biggest issue with people who speak of X3 as an epic failure on behalf of Fox is that the film did its job: MAKE MONEY.

it didn't please comic book fans and because they are a tiny box office percentage, no one cares.

at least no one in Hollywood.

*same thing can be applied to deadpool, now that people are going insane over the changes made to him.

the fans will complain, but the studio will still give reynolds a film with blades coming out of his arms and lasers out of his eyes.

and I'm okay with that :yay:
:dry:

[Sam Fisher]

I DO NOT FREAKING SUPPORT THEM! STOP ACTING LIKE I DO DAGNABBIT!

Just a hint. That awful FF sequel is one of the reasons I don't. X-men 3 is another. Dragon Ball is another. I, Robot and what they did to Alex Proyas is another. LXG is another. I never paid to see LXG in theatres either. Fox hates creative talents and ran them away from the studio. They butcher movies to create 90 minute garbage and they ended up with a summer of bombs in 2008.I won't say DBE is good, but how can you say it sucks withouht having watched it? Again, if you didn't like FF, why did you watch the second or X3? You're supporting them by watching their movies.


I'm not saying you're not right in disliking Fox, I'm just saying that I don't get how some have such haterd for Fox yet they still watch their movies{and I'm not saying you}. Some people just get so worked up over a freaken movie studio like it's the end of the world.

[TheVileOne]

Dude, enough. X-men 3 came out three freaking years ago. Why'd I see X-men 3? Because my friends wanted to go see it, and they didn't want to listen to me.

I never paid to see Fantastic Four 2 in theatres, so I didn't pay to support it. I saw it for a specific reason.

How do I know DBE isn't good? Because I know things about Dragon Ball. And I know about the script. I know about the mediocre talent they hired, and the director is makes some of the worst movies ever. I've seen enough footage of the movie online to know its bad.

[Sam Fisher]

I think you're missing the point completely. Oh well, it's not like I'll get my point across anyway. That's fine. That's your opinion. Just understand that some of us actually like FF and X3 and that we don't judge a movie based on a trailer or a few clips.

[TheVileOne]

That's fine for FF. But FF is a dead franchise now because of the route you apparently liked that Fox took. Just keep that in mind.

[Sam Fisher]

This is why I hate Fox haters. No one can have a differing opinion.



Fox took that route because it made them money{for the first movie at least}. Fox is a business, do you think they care about what you or me thinks? No. They're in it to make money.



Yeah, there many many many things in FF they could have done so much better. But I still enjoyed it for what it was. A fun movie.

[Sam Fisher]

I'm sorry Vile. I've got nothing against you. I just get a bit annoyed when every other post I see nowadays is a Fox hate:yay:

[Ace of Knaves]

To be fair, Fox does deserve some hate.

But what really annoys me about some people is that they seem to expect the studios to cater JUST to them, or us you know what I mean?

If they were to make these films just for the fans of the source material then the comic book movie genre wouldn't last as long as it has.

There was some posts on the main superherohype page on the new Ryan Reynolds/Wade Wilson picture article. There was some people on there like "Why have they got to change it?!?! Don't they realize it's the fans who bring in the money! They should make these films just for the fans!!" and crap like that. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy, what a numpty.

Anyone who thinks like that should have some sense slapped into them. Sure I would love it if all these films were made just for fans of the books, but it is NEVER gonna happen. Never in a million years.

[TheVileOne]

This is why I hate Fox haters. No one can have a differing opinion.



Fox took that route because it made them money{for the first movie at least}. Fox is a business, do you think they care about what you or me thinks? No. They're in it to make money.

Obviously you don't see the logic in that their route didn't have longevity. That route they took ultimately failed with the second movie. So no third FF. No Silver Surfer movie. Done. Because of the first film.

Yeah, there many many many things in FF they could have done so much better. But I still enjoyed it for what it was. A fun movie.

That ruined the future of FF as a film franchise.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

*sigh*

Are we still going on and on about the blind, mindless hatred of Fox?

There really is truth to the whole "if you don't like Fox, don't watch their movies" argument. Instead, people keep watching them and keep watching them, and keep complaining and keep complaining.

For the record, speaking of box office flops, how about that Watchmen? And it WAS accurate to the source material, so what does that say?

*awaits fanboi elitism that the general audience is too "stupid" to "get it"*

[Sam Fisher]

To be fair, Fox does deserve some hate.

But what really annoys me about some people is that they seem to expect the studios to cater JUST to them, or us you know what I mean?

If they were to make these films just for the fans of the source material then the comic book movie genre wouldn't last as long as it has.

There was some posts on the main superherohype page on the new Ryan Reynolds/Wade Wilson picture article. There was some people on there like "Why have they got to change it?!?! Don't they realize it's the fans who bring in the money! They should make these films just for the fans!!" and crap like that. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy, what a numpty.

Anyone who thinks like that should have some sense slapped into them. Sure I would love it if all these films were made just for fans of the books, but it is NEVER gonna happen. Never in a million years.Yes, I agree Fox deserves hate. I just think fans get too worked up over it.

Obviously you don't see the logic in that their route didn't have longevity. That route they took ultimately failed with the second movie. So no third FF. No Silver Surfer movie. Done. Because of the first film.



That ruined the future of FF as a film franchise.
Like I said, Fox does not care about that. They only care about bringing in the highest profits possible, hence the 90 minute movies{and no, I'm not saying this is a good thing}.

[Ace of Knaves]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil :up: Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

I don't think Fox as a studio can be entirely blamed for FF demise. It was poorly written, poorly acted (apart from Chiklis and Evans). Fox threw a lot of money at both films, it can't be said they were being stingy. It's just the director and writers didn't do a very good job.

I mean, do you guys think a Fox exec was like "So let's make the Silver Surfers power come from his board!"

Errr...I don't think so. I'd be surprised if a Fox exec would even have the ability to think something like that up. It was the writers or the director who made that decision.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil :up: Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

I don't think Fox as a studio can be entirely blamed for FF demise. It was poorly written, poorly acted (apart from Chiklis and Evans). Fox threw a lot of money at both films, it can't be said they were being stingy. It's just the director and writers didn't do a very good job.

I mean, do you guys think a Fox exec was like "So let's make the Silver Surfers power come from his board!"

Errr...I don't think so. I'd be surprised if a Fox exec would even have the ability to think something like that up. It was the writers or the director who made that decision.

:up:

People want to blame the studio for everything, when it's the writers who are putting things on paper, and the directors who are often coming up with the ideas.

For the record: Cyclops dying was not a Fox decision. It was a collaboration between Kinberg, Penn, and Vaughn, because they didn't have James Marsden for a long period of time. They, in Kinberg's words, came up with a "really awesome idea" on how to work around his limited availability.

As far as Singer not being there, even from the beginning he didn't really want to stick around. He said he didn't want to do another X-Men film until he did something else first. That something else became Logan's Run. Dunno whatever even happened to that.

Fox NEEDED to move on with X-Men 3. If they linger too long, actors lose availability, audiences lose interest - the company was basically putting themselves in a position to lose money if they didn't release the movie when they did. It had nothing to do with beating Singer to theatres.

I'm not saying Fox is innocent - they are still a business and make BUSINESS decisions, not artistic decisions.

But there is so much false information being spewed out there just to bad mouth Fox. It's like a bunch if Michael Moore's running around making up lies and bending the truth to "expose the truth from the big bad evil entity".

And people wonder why I get frustrated with all the mindless, ignorant Fox hate.

[Sam Fisher]

:up:

People want to blame the studio for everything, when it's the writers who are putting things on paper, and the directors who are often coming up with the ideas.

For the record: Cyclops dying was not a Fox decision. It was a collaboration between Kinberg, Penn, and Vaughn, because they didn't have James Marsden for a long period of time. They, in Kinberg's words, came up with a "really awesome idea" on how to work around his limited availability.

As far as Singer not being there, even from the beginning he didn't really want to stick around. He said he didn't want to do another X-Men film until he did something else first. That something else became Logan's Run. Dunno whatever even happened to that.

Fox NEEDED to move on with X-Men 3. If they linger too long, actors lose availability, audiences lose interest - the company was basically putting themselves in a position to lose money if they didn't release the movie when they did. It had nothing to do with beating Singer to theatres.

I'm not saying Fox is innocent - they are still a business and make BUSINESS decisions, not artistic decisions.

But there is so much false information being spewed out there just to bad mouth Fox. It's like a bunch if Michael Moore's running around making up lies and bending the truth to "expose the truth from the big bad evil entity".

And people wonder why I get frustrated with all the mindless, ignorant Fox hate.Well, You two pretty much summed up how I feel:up:

[BMM]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil :up: Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of a graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of an Alan Moore graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

300 wasn't Alan Moore, it was Frank Miller.

But that's just semantics regarding your point.

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes, and X-Men is a HUGE franchise, in which they are on film #4 and STILL counting, as they are looking at possible Magneto (hope it doesn't happen), First Class (hope it DOES happen, if it's a prequel), and maybe even Deadpool films.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

[BMM]

300 wasn't Alan Moore, it was Frank Miller.

D'oh. My bad. My point still stands.

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes...

I'm going to disagree. Fox didn't pursue the likes of Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four with the hopes of producing 1 or 2 lackluster films instead of franchises capable of standing alongside the likes of X-Men or Batman or Spider-Man. I think the fact that Daredevil and Elektra fell by the wayside and the fact that the Fantastic Four films fared worse with each installment, so much so that Fox is rumored to reboot the franchise, speaks volumes about the mistakes the studio didn't make.

and X-Men is a HUGE franchise, in which they are on film #4 and STILL counting, as they are looking at possible Magneto (hope it doesn't happen), First Class (hope it DOES happen, if it's a prequel), and maybe even Deadpool films.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

Yes they do, and it isn't limited to their comic book properties.

[Peter McCabe]

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes...

Daredevil was actually a flop. Domestically it made almost the same amount of money it cost to shoot.

Fantastic 4 was a moderate success, and it was released the same year as Elektra - which to this date has been FOX's biggest comic book bomb. 2005 was a bad year for FOX, they had 2 comic book movies out (one of them a sequel) and both the combined grosses for those films still couldn't catch up to Batman Begins' $200 Million box office gross domestically.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

This I really agree with.

X-Men is the first successful and longest running comic book franchise, going on 10 years.

The first X-Men film put comic book movies on the map again in a serious form (it had been 10 years since the Burton Batman films) and it opened the door for the Spider Man and Nolan Batman films.

[Ace of Knaves]

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of a graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

But 300 wasn't popular because it was accurate to the source material. It was popular because it's a over the top, gory, swords and sandals extravaganza.

Watchmen was as true to the source material as possible really, a few things weren't explored (news stand guy, Rorschach's shrink) but they will probably be in the extended addition. It was made for the fans by a fan, and it hasn't flopped per se, but it isn't doing very well.

The point is, these films ARE NOT MADE JUST FOR US COMIC BOOK FANS. And they never will be, never, ever, ever. I really hope they would be, but we, comic book fans, are not the target of these studios. They look at these films as products, investments. They want their product to be as successful as possible. Catering to just comic book fans in most cases wouldn't allow that.

[TheVileOne]

Sorry but if the FF movie franchise is dead now then they are making a lot of mistakes. FF was clearly a mistake since they did the same crap over again in the sequel and people didn't care because of the first one.

Also Sam Fisher, you keep harping on Fox wanting to make the most money possible hence short running times.

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee and see that is one of the most flawed and stupidest mindsets ever.

X-men 3 might've been Fox's ideal length. And so was X-men. But last time I checked, the second highest grossing movie of all time was a 2 and a half hour comic book movie.

So the logic of this stupid running time and 90 minutes = more money is stupid and flawed.

Return of the King was 3 hours and 20 minutes and it still made more money than any other LOTR film.

[Peter McCabe]

Sorry but if the FF movie franchise is dead now then they are making a lot of mistakes. FF was clearly a mistake since they did the same crap over again in the sequel and people didn't care because of the first one.

I want a reboot for the F4, just not now.

maybe in 10 years.

[Peter McCabe]

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee and see that is one of the most flawed and stupidest mindsets ever.

X-men 3 might've been Fox's ideal length. And so was X-men. But last time I checked, the second highest grossing movie of all time was a 2 and a half hour comic book movie.

So the logic of this stupid running time and 90 minutes = more money is stupid and flawed.

Return of the King was 3 hours and 20 minutes and it still made more money than any other LOTR film.

I agree with all of this BUT there are some GREAT 90 -100 minute movies out there.

its a double edged sword.

crappy long films and crappy short films.

[FaT_tONle]

Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said... X-3 was shaping up to be a 300 million dollar film based on the hype of the first two films. No doubt in my mind... had they fleshed out the plot over a two and a half hour film treating the characters/story with respect while honoring the source material, they would have made that kind of money. X-Men is probably the most popular Marvel title next to Spiderman. It should have been the number two franchise. Now it looks like Avengers, IM, and other Marvel films will soon leave it in the dust. Along with FF, whose films up until this point have been a joke in comparison to the first two SM films, X-2, IM, BB, and TDK. Those are the facts. Until Fox gets their comic book property on par with those other franchises, they have underacheived... that's all there is too it. And that means they made mistakes. Mistakes that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars based on the under utilization of their comic book properties. The bar has been set... and Fox has failed miserably thus far in terms of meeting that bar, with the exception of the first two X-Men films.

[Peter McCabe]

Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said... X-3 was shaping up to be a 300 million dollar film based on the hype of the first two films. No doubt in my mind... had they fleshed out the plot over a two and a half hour film treating the characters/story with respect while honoring the source material, they would have made that kind of money. X-Men is probably the most popular Marvel title next to Spiderman. It should have been the number two franchise. Now it looks like Avengers, IM, and other Marvel films will soon leave it in the dust. Along with FF, whose films up until this point have been a joke in comparison to the first two SM films, X-2, IM, BB, and TDK. Those are the facts. Until Fox gets their comic book property on par with those other franchises, they have underacheived... simple as that. And that means they made mistakes. Mistakes that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars based on the under utilization of their comic book properties. The bar has been set... and Fox has failed miserably thus far, with the exception of the first two X-Men films.

not true at all and once more spoken with a very elite mentality.

General audiences DONT CARE about source material.

TDK was not source material accurate and look how that went.

*the fact that you consider IRON MAN a better film than X1 says alot about your taste in popcorn.

[FaT_tONle]

not true at all and once more spoken with a very elite mentality.

General audiences DONT CARE about source material.

TDK was not source material accurate and look how that went.

*the fact that you consider IRON MAN a better film than X1 says alot about your taste in popcorn.

TDK drew many inspirations from the source material like the Long Halloween... and it was reflected. You don't need to directly adapt something like a Snyder... but you also can't make Pheonix a plot device and give Cyclops the five minute treatment in a Pheonix arc... imagine Nolan giving Dent ten minutes of screen time before killing him off. That is the equivalent.

[TheVileOne]

I agree with all of this BUT there are some GREAT 90 -100 minute movies out there.

its a double edged sword.

crappy long films and crappy short films.
Of course there are. But I'm tired of people saying that Fox does this with these movies because they want to make the most money when its total hogwash.

A lot of good comedies are short and under 2 hours. But a lot of Judd Apatow comedies run longer than the typical R-rated comedies, but they still make a ton of money.

[Peter McCabe]

TDK drew many inspirations from the source material like the Long Halloween... and it was reflected. You don't need to directly adapt something like Snyder... but you also can't make Pheonix a plot device and give Cyclops the five minute treatment in a Pheonix arc... imagine Nolan giving Dent ten minutes of screen time before killing him off. That is the equivalent.

The Phoenix arc is far too cheesy to give it a Zack Snyder adaptation on film.

Even Claremont agreed it shouldnt be directly adapted.

I liked what they did with Jean in the movie and all the people that hadn't read the arc apparently did too.

ONLY comic book fans dislike the phoenix story in X3.

90% of non-fans I meet liked it.

what does that say?

(I'll answer) it says that people dont care AT ALL about the source material most of the time.

*I'm already getting bombarded with positive questions about "that creepy looking dude with the blades and laser eyes fighting wolverine".

I for one am almost never bothered by the changes I see in the films. Comics are one thing, films are another.

and then there's WATCHMEN :yay:

[FaT_tONle]

The Phoenix arc is far too cheesy to give it a Zack Snyder adaptation on film.

Even Claremont agreed it shouldnt be directly adapted.

I liked what they did with Jean in the movie and all the people that hadn't read the arc apparently did too.

ONLY comic book fans dislike the phoenix story in X3.

90% of non-fans I meet liked it.

If you say so... I don't remotely agree.


what does that say?

(I'll answer) it says that people dont care AT ALL about the source material most of the time.

*I'm already getting bombarded with positive questions about "that creepy looking dude with the blades and laser eyes fighting wolverine".

I for one am almost never bothered by the changes I see in the films. Comics are one thing, films are another.

and then there's WATCHMEN :yay:

Again, if you think the GP is so oblivious to the source material that they will accept whatever is thrown at them regardless, then you are mistaken. Again, no one cares about a faithful adaptation of the source material other than fanboys. It's about treating your property with a certain amount of respect that when given, will connect and resonate more among the general audience. The FF films and X-3 did not acheive this... hence the modest/mediocre reception to them.

[Peter McCabe]

The FF films and X-3 did not acheive this... hence the modest/mediocre reception to them.

$234 Million plus a $123 Million 3 day weekend is anything but modest.

that's a financial success in the eyes of ANY movie watcher.

[FaT_tONle]

$234 Million plus a $123 Million 3 day weekend is anything but modest.

that's a financial success in the eyes of ANY movie watcher.

Not in this day in age IF you keep in mind the budget was well over 200 million. IM was around 180... grosses 300 plus. X-1, X-2 cost about 60 and 110 respectively... we know what those films grossed. When you are investing that kind of money, anything short of 300 is a disappointment, at least in comparison to your predecessors and contemporaries. It didn't flop, but it underacheived. Great opening... modest legs at best. That is X-3.

[Peter McCabe]

Not in this day in age IF you keep in ming the budget was well over 200 million. IM was around 180... grosses 300 plus. X-1, X-2 cost about 60 and 110 respectively... we know what those films grossed. When you are investing that kind of money, anything short of 300 is a disappointment, at least in comparison to your predecessors and contemporaries. It didn't flop, but it underacheived. Great opening... modest legs at best. That is X-3.

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

Trailer I hit 9 months prior to release, and that set the hysteria with the masses into motion.

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.

Also add the lack of an action figure line for it and the lack of endorsements from places like BK and such, which didn't help.

*I'm a HUGE fan of Jon Favreau's, but I really wasn't that impressed with IRON MAN. I liked X3 more simply because it was a long anticipated follow up to X2 and because the tone/intensity of the plot was the darkest I had ever seen in a comic book movie - until TDK.

The pace was a bit fast, yeah.

The supporting characters were filler at best.

But there was Jackman, and Janssen, and Stewart and Grammer http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[FaT_tONle]

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

Trailer I hit 9 months prior to release, and that set the hysteria with the masses into motion.

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.


You know I don't know where you are getting this stuff to be honest... amusing nonetheless. I think Nolan got the memo that dark films won't have great legs... if X-3 was even that dark... :huh:

Also add the lack of an action figure line for it and the lack of endorsements from places like BK and such, which didn't help.

Again... statistics and sources to back up these statements would be nice... you are honestly the first person I have met to have mentioned this kind of stuff.


*I'm a HUGE fan of Jon Favreau's, but I really wasn't that impressed with IRON MAN. I liked X3 more simply because it was a long anticipated follow up to X2 and because the tone/intensity of the plot was the darkest I had ever seen in a comic book movie - until TDK.

Whatever floats your boat.


The pace was a bit fast, yeah.

The supporting characters were filler at best.

But there was Jackman, and Janssen, and Stewart and Grammer http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif


And the movie underacheived at the box office despite a 230 million dollar gross, and had mediocre to poor WOM. Pretty forgettable in the eyes of most movie goers when you look at the dropoffs the following weeks. Same with the FF films... sorry if you disagree. I am just comparing the numbers.

[Peter McCabe]

You know I honestly don't know where you are getting this stuff to be honest... amusing nonetheless. I think Nolan got the memo that dark films won't have great legs... if X-3 was even that dark... :huh:

Well here's my source of evidence ---> the theatres.

When I saw X3 the second and third times (early shows on friday and saturday) I was surrounded by many 9 - 12 year olds accompanied by their parents. The same kinds of people I saw EVERY time I went to see IRON MAN.

When I saw TDK, I barely ever saw these young audiences.

TDK's numbers MUST have been primarily based on teenagers and adults.

While IRON MAN's must have been largely composed of kids.

[FaT_tONle]

Well here's my source of evidence ---> the theatres.

When I saw X3 the second and third times (early shows on friday and saturday) I was surrounded by many 9 - 12 year olds accompanied by their parents. The same kinds of people I saw EVERY time I went to see IRON MAN.

Funny... because when a friend dragged me into X-3 the second or third week... I don't remember seeing anyone there spare for two or three other groups... :cwink:. Guess it's all about POV... at least the several people that were in attendance were not kids I'll give you that much.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197269,00.html

$225 million to make
$45 million first day (second highest all time at that point)

Domestic total = $234,362,462

But no, it's not done there. You see, the film didn't merely make a $9 million profit, no, it's actually about $224 million profit, because the movie is shown in more than just the United States.

Foreign total = $224,997,093

So what we have is this:

$234,362,462
+$224,997,093
_____________

$459,359,555

Then you take the money made, and subtract the cost. We then have:

$459,359,555
-$225,000,000
_____________
$234,359,555 in profit

It's 10 day total is 17th all time.

All time domestic is still #57 all time, #79 all time worldwide.

^ Source: boxofficemojo.com http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm

Then you factor in DVD's, where it sold over 5 million copies it's first week, even beating out a big time Disney release with The Little Mermaid (never underestimate the power of those Disney Classics releases).

^ Source: Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252163

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.

[FaT_tONle]

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.

I guess we can't hold X-Men to the same level of expectations we have for Spiderman, Batman, and even Iron Man in terms of box office success.

[Downhere]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197269,00.html

$225 million to make
$45 million first day (second highest all time at that point)

Domestic total = $234,362,462

But no, it's not done there. You see, the film didn't merely make a $9 million profit, no, it's actually about $224 million profit, because the movie is shown in more than just the United States.

Foreign total = $224,997,093

So what we have is this:

$234,362,462
+$224,997,093
_____________

$459,359,555

Then you take the money made, and subtract the cost. We then have:

$459,359,555
-$225,000,000
_____________
$234,359,555 in profit

It's 10 day total is 17th all time.

All time domestic is still #57 all time, #79 all time worldwide.

^ Source: boxofficemojo.com http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm

Then you factor in DVD's, where it sold over 5 million copies it's first week, even beating out a big time Disney release with The Little Mermaid (never underestimate the power of those Disney Classics releases).

^ Source: Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252163

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.


You have to take into account that studio's only get (on average) 55% of the total gross considering theaters will get a chunk of the change. So, Fox would have gotten around 250 million from the theatrical haul of X3, which you then subtract the production and marketing costs. I think it's safe to say that Fox didn't make a profit from the theatrical takings but they got their profit from the DVD's and cable rights.

[Peter McCabe]

I think it's safe to say that Fox didn't make a profit from the theatrical takings but they got their profit from the DVD's and cable rights.

you must be joking.

[Downhere]

you must be joking.

How am I joking? The studio does not keep 100% of the theatrical earnings. They usually, on average, get 55% (and that's being generous considering studios usually get less of a percentage for the international earnings when it is all said and done). X3 cost over 200 million to produce plus marketing, at best, the film broke even from the theatrical earnings and therefore they made their profit from the home video market and cable rights.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

How am I joking? The studio does not keep 100% of the theatrical earnings. They usually, on average, get 55% of the earnings when it is all said and done. X3 cost over 200 million to produce plus marketing, at best, the film broke even from the theatrical earnings and therefore they made their profit from the home video market and cable rights.

Theatres get a lot more than that.

Having worked in a movie theatre myself, I know that the theatres hardly get anything from the price of admission. That's why food and drink prices are so high at the movies, and why they show movies late to get people in line for food, because that's how they make their money.

[Spider-Vader]

I agree with all of this BUT there are some GREAT 90 -100 minute movies out there.

its a double edged sword.

crappy long films and crappy short films.
Most good 90-100 minute films in the past couple years have been animated, if not all of them.


While IRON MAN's must have been largely composed of kids.

When I saw it on opening night I don't remember any little kids.

[Downhere]

Theatres get a lot more than that.

Having worked in a movie theatre myself, I know that the theatres hardly get anything from the price of admission. That's why food and drink prices are so high at the movies, and why they show movies late to get people in line for food, because that's how they make their money.

While it's true that theaters make most of their money from the concessions, they do get a cut of the tickets sold. Some studios have a system worked out depending on the movie that they will receive 100% of the first weekends take and then 75% of the second week, 50% of the third week, etc. Or, they may set a set percentage that the theaters will keep. That's for the domestic haul...internationally, studios can get a great deal less than that...usually 40% or less.

Here's a link that sheds some light on what Studio's make on films.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money

[BMM]

But 300 wasn't popular because it was accurate to the source material.

Right. I’m not arguing it was.

Watchmen was as true to the source material as possible really, a few things weren't explored (news stand guy, Rorschach's shrink) but they will probably be in the extended addition. It was made for the fans by a fan, and it hasn't flopped per se, but it isn't doing very well.

The point is, these films ARE NOT MADE JUST FOR US COMIC BOOK FANS. And they never will be, never, ever, ever. I really hope they would be, but we, comic book fans, are not the target of these studios. They look at these films as products, investments. They want their product to be as successful as possible. Catering to just comic book fans in most cases wouldn't allow that.

Sorry, I should have clarified my position. I don’t think that Warner Bros. produced Watchmen from the perspective that the movie was made for the fans by the fans. The studio viewed the movie as just another investment. Albeit, a costly one. Otherwise, I agree. For the most part, it is more faithful than other comic book adaptations, but it isn’t faring well given what it cost to produce the movie. But what does that prove that we don’t already know? We know faithfulness isn’t necessarily an indicator of audience reception and subsequent box office performance. The Fantastic Four franchise is proof of that.

I believe Warner Bros. made a mistake thinking they could capture lightning in a bottle twice with Snyder. They probably hoped they could achieve the same, or better, success with Snyder, especially if they gave him more money. My point is the same formula didn’t work. There is a lesson to be learned from that. Likewise, I hope Fox has learned a lesson from the performance of its films. The same formula doesn’t always work. In Fox’s case, micro managing and truncating films for a quick buck in the short run isn’t necessarily best for the studio or its films in the long run.

[BMM]

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

:huh: And what of the other $219+ million dollars (which nearly matches the entire theatrical run of The Last Stand) that Iron Man pulled in beyond its opening $98 million and in an incredibly competitive summer to boot? The movie grossed nearly $600 million dollars. That’s due to more than just hype.

I guess we can't hold X-Men to the same level of expectations we have for Spiderman, Batman, and even Iron Man in terms of box office success.

Financially, not yet... in some cases, not even close.

[Downhere]

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.



:huh: Umm, both films seemed to have a similar tone of "darkness." There were some dark elements to Iron Man (the whole being captured by terrorists subplot) and there were some elements of darkness to X3 (Phoenix and the unnecessary killing of main characters). Honestly, X2 was the most tonally dark X-Men movie to date. X3's dark tone was forced, which didn't help its cause.

[Peter McCabe]

:huh: Umm, both films seemed to have a similar tone of "darkness." There were some dark elements to Iron Man (the whole being captured by terrorists subplot) and there were some elements of darkness to X3 (Phoenix and the unnecessary killing of main characters). Honestly, X2 was the most tonally dark X-Men movie to date. X3's dark tone was forced, which didn't help its cause.

I don't agree with this at all.

People that watched X3 with me (both fans of the comic and non fans) expressed a great deal of praise for the intensity they felt from the death of Xavier.

It wasn't AT ALL unnecessary.

On the contrary - it gave the film a sense of drama/doom that the other two don't have.

I really dont see why X2 came off "tonally dark" to you, same goes with Iron Man.

Favreau himself said he directed a "light" film.

The only other film aside of X3 that gave me that emotional thrill ride was TDK when The Joker began to destroy Gotham one step at a time.

[Downhere]

I don't agree with this at all.

People that watched X3 with me (both fans of the comic and non fans) expressed a great deal of praise for the intensity they felt from the death of Xavier.

It wasn't AT ALL unnecessary.

On the contrary - it gave the film a sense of drama/doom that the other two don't have.



The death of Xavier was unnecessary, as was the death of Cyclops. With Xavier, that whole sense of drama/doom was stripped away with that hokey way of bringing him back. Cyclops was killed off because that was the only way the writers saw fit to include Cyclops due to the actor's schedule conflicting with the film, which goes back to Fox rushing X3. Then you have the cure which would have been an interesting twist but was made pointless due to those affected having their abilities come back (i.e. Magneto, which alludes to other cured mutants gaining their abilities back at some point). There was some tension in X3, but it lacked the emotional response that X2 provided. The ending of X2 had more tension and emotional resonance than the whole of X3.


I really dont see why X2 came off "tonally dark" to you, same goes with Iron Man.

Considering X2 is considered to be the franchise's Empire Strikes Back (One of the, if not the most, tonally dark Star Wars films), how can you not see it as "tonally dark?" And with Iron Man, considering the fact that terrorism is at a high these past years, that part of the story seemed dark in nature, especially for a comic book film which pulled in families and children.

[Peter McCabe]

The death of Xavier was unnecessary, as was the death of Cyclops. With Xavier, that whole sense of drama/doom was stripped away with that hokey way of bringing him back. Cyclops was killed off because that was the only way the writers saw fit to include Cyclops due to the actor's schedule conflicting with the film, which goes back to Fox rushing X3. Then you have the cure which would have been an interesting twist but was made pointless due to those affected having their abilities come back (i.e. Magneto, which alludes to other cured mutants gaining their abilities back at some point). There was some tension in X3, but it lacked the emotional response that X2 provided. The ending of X2 had more tension and emotional resonance than the whole of X3.

the story of X3 would have centered on Wolverine regardless.

it was all about Logan's willingness to do the necessary thing in the end.

*You're basically saying the very intense and EPIC death of Xavier is instantly forgettable when you learn he's alive.

That I cannot agree with.

*The ending of X2 (as was the entire third act) dragged and did little for me. Jean Grey's death was anything but intense and that has alot to do with the fact that Singer decided on killing her off very late into principal photography.

Xavier's death was planned all along. It was the defining moment of X3 that proved this "Phoenix" was indeed an imminent threat.

I always tell fans that disliked the deaths in X3, "What if she hadn't killed anyone?"

How can one be a danger if one is not creating danger?

Killing Scott made her unstable. Killing Charles made her terrifying.

The term "Dark Phoenix" couldn't be more fitting than how it was in X3.

Like I said, the fast 100 minute pace and the waste of supporting mutants are my only real issues with the picture.

for me X3 is the tragedy of Charles Xavier and Jean Grey.

[Downhere]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never! :hehe:

For me, X3 is the tragedy of X3.

[King of Kings]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never! :hehe:

For me, X3 is the tragedy of X3.

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

[Peter McCabe]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never! :hehe:

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4590/jeffreydeanmorgan.jpg

[Downhere]

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

X3 being the tragedy of X3 is all inclusive. :cwink::oldrazz:

[X-Maniac]

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

Vinnie was cast by Matthew Vaughn...who since claimed his version of the film would be better even though he never had the guts to stick around and go through with it.

Since no person alive has the shape/build of Juggernaut, any movie version is always going to be a toned-down version.

[Peter McCabe]

Vinnie was cast by Matthew Vaughn...who since claimed his version of the film would be better even though he never had the guts to stick around and go through with it.

Since no person alive has the shape/build of Juggernaut, any movie version is always going to be a toned-down version.

I liked Vinnie as Marco ALOT.

perfect bloke for jackman to duke it out with http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[King of Kings]

X3 being the tragedy of X3 is all inclusive. :cwink::oldrazz:

Touché.

[Downhere]

Vinnie was cast by Matthew Vaughn...who since claimed his version of the film would be better even though he never had the guts to stick around and go through with it.



I wouldn't say he didn't have the guts to go through with it. From what I understand, he wasn't thrilled about the production schedule and probably got a hint at how the studio would treat him during the production and decided to cut his losses.

[X-Maniac]

I wouldn't say he didn't have the guts to go through with it.

I would.

From what I understand, he wasn't thrilled about the production schedule and probably got a hint at how the studio would treat him during the production and decided to cut his losses.

Which more or less says that he didn't have the guts to go through with it. Whatever the reason, he didn't stick around.

[Downhere]

I would.



Which more or less says that he didn't have the guts to go through with it. Whatever the reason, he didn't stick around.

Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, there are reasons why certain director's won't work with Fox. They must be pretty bad if some director's swear them off completely.

[Peter McCabe]

Which more or less says that he didn't have the guts to go through with it. Whatever the reason, he didn't stick around.

yea I agree.

he punked out of THOR too and that really bothered me.

[Electrix]

Which more or less says that he didn't have the guts to go through with it. Whatever the reason, he didn't stick around.

He said he wanted to make the best X-Men movie he could and under the circumstances that wouldn't happen. He had the guts otherwise he wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

he punked out of THOR too and that really bothered me.

I'm not one to name drop but I had the chance to visit the Kick-Ass set last November and I asked him about Thor. He said at one point they were 2 weeks away from filming but Marvel backed out because 1) Iron Man hadn't been release yet and and they wanted to wait and see how that went and 2) The film he wanted to make would have required a large budget. Rather than sit around and wait for Marvel he decided to make Kick-Ass. Then Marvel moved on without him and got Kenneth Branagh. Vaughn said he'd still like to make a movie with Marvel in the future.

[protocida]

I liked X3, but there are some thing that did bothered me:

1. Cyclop's death. They could kill him off, but I think it could've been done better.
2. Mistique's betrayal. The original version of the Script, where we find out everything was a set up made by her and Magneto, with whom she mets at the park, would be better.

I really liked Juggernaut in the movie. He was really funny. I think it would be really cool if he appeared in a Wolverine movie, in his Ultimate version, which is a part of the Weapon X Project, but that would never happen...

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I thought Vinnie did a good job as Juggernaut, considering what he was given to work with.

The fight at Jean's house was awesome, especially the bit where he smashes Logan through one part of the ceiling and he falls through another part of the ceiling the other side of the house :D But that fight was too short really, they could of made Wolverine vs Juggernaut a truly epic battle.

[Neptune]

Juggernaut should have ripped him in half like hulk did.

[Peter McCabe]

Juggernaut should have ripped him in half like hulk did.

movie wolverine cant be ripped in half nor desintegrated.

[Microchip]

Yea I thought Vinnie did a good job as Juggernaut, considering what he was given to work with.

The fight at Jean's house was awesome, especially the bit where he smashes Logan through one part of the ceiling and he falls through another part of the ceiling the other side of the house :D But that fight was too short really, they could of made Wolverine vs Juggernaut a truly epic battle.

They did, actually. Search youtube for the extended version of that fight, it's about 30 seconds to a minute longer and adds a bit of violence and a... somewhat strange Wolverine/Storm double teaming on Juggernaut. They shortened down the scene for theatrical because APPARENTLY the length messed with the flow.

[Ace of Knaves]

Interesting, I'll have to check it out.

But I mean they should of made a Wolverine vs Juggernaut fight a real centre piece of the movie. Make it like a brutal, ten minute long tear up.

[Deaths Head II]

I think it was more dissapointing that we didn't have a Collosus versus Juggernaut fight.

[Downhere]

I think it was more dissapointing that we didn't have a Collosus versus Juggernaut fight.

That's true, that would have been a great fight.

[Peter McCabe]

Interesting, I'll have to check it out.

But I mean they should of made a Wolverine vs Juggernaut fight a real centre piece of the movie. Make it like a brutal, ten minute long tear up.

agreed http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

I was hoping we would get that at the end of the film, but the real concern was Phoenix so it woulda been too much.

the film really needed another hour.

it needed all the deleted scenes, some of the alternates and 30 minutes of further character development for the supporting players.

*I still think sacrificing Scott was necessary to demonstrate how unstable Jean Grey was going to be in the film.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Matthew Vaughn leaving was the best thing to ever happen to X-Men: The Last Stand.

[Downhere]

Matthew Vaughn leaving was the best thing to ever happen to X-Men: The Last Stand.

I don't know about that, both Layer Cake and Stardust were awesome movies. I think he would have did a great job on an X-Men film if he were given control and not micromanaged.

[BMM]

A part of me still wants to see Wolverine running around with Leech in a backpack. :o

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't know about that, both Layer Cake and Stardust were awesome movies. I think he would have did a great job on an X-Men film if he were given control and not micromanaged.

Vaughn in control got us a dead Cyclops, a dead Xavier, would have gotten us Wolverine running around on Alcatraz with Leech in a backpack, and a horrible Danger Room sequence in which Iceman regenerated from being burnt down to a skeleton.

God knows what other absurd, ridiculous ideas he was about to come up with.

[Peter McCabe]

Matthew Vaughn leaving was the best thing to ever happen to X-Men: The Last Stand.

he made some great creative choices during his time with the production though.

Kelsey as Beast was genius. cant believe I had never thought about it after watching Frasier for 10 years straight :woot:

*I think Ratner's intensity in certain scenes worked great, but the overall pace of the film was too fast.

Vaughn woulda taken a more calm approach, but I doubt we woulda gotten the fight at Jean's house with Vaughn.

[Downhere]

Vaughn in control got us a dead Cyclops, a dead Xavier, would have gotten us Wolverine running around on Alcatraz with Leech in a backpack, and a horrible Danger Room sequence in which Iceman regenerated from being burnt down to a skeleton.

God knows what other absurd, ridiculous ideas he was about to come up with.

Considering some of those absurd ideas made it into the film, it wouldn't have made a difference. Either way they went down the wrong road on #3.

[Peter McCabe]

Considering some of those absurd ideas made it into the film, it wouldn't have made a difference. Either way they went down the wrong road on #3.

The deaths of cyclops and xavier were not absurd at all.

Phoenix had to prove her insanity and the people closest to her were the best candidates to demonstrate that.

[Downhere]

The deaths of cyclops and xavier were not absurd at all.

Phoenix had to prove her insanity and the people closest to her were the best candidates to demonstrate that.

Xavier didn't bother me as much as Cyke's death, which was beyond sucktastic (yes, I made up a word).

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea they had to show that Jean completely lost control and was over taken by the Pheonix. What better way to demonstrate that then killing the people that she thought was holding her back.ie. Scott and Charles.

[BMM]

I think we received a fair amount of the Vaughn, Kinberg, and Penn "infamous" six day script... so I doubt I would have had a problem with him actually directing it in place of Ratner. If anything would have been an improvement, it might have been the run-time, as the film may not have fallen victim to an ADHD treatment.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Considering some of those absurd ideas made it into the film, it wouldn't have made a difference. Either way they went down the wrong road on #3.

They made it into the film because by the time Matthew Vaughn got done throwing a temper tantrum like a 10 year old spoiled brat, Brett Ratner didn't have time to make significant changes to the script.

[BMM]

What?

[Electrix]

They made it into the film because by the time Matthew Vaughn got done throwing a temper tantrum like a 10 year old spoiled brat, Brett Ratner didn't have time to make significant changes to the script.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled brat'.

[Peter McCabe]

Yea they had to show that Jean completely lost control and was over taken by the Pheonix. What better way to demonstrate that then killing the people that she thought was holding her back.ie. Scott and Charles.

agreed.

there are seeds of this in X1 and X2 was clearly the begining of the end of the "controlled" Jean Grey.

[Peter McCabe]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled little brat'.

from what you said about THOR and his alleged dissatisfaction with X3's production/schedule, it sounds like he's too comfortable.

doesn't like to compromise, not a team player [team is spelled J-A-C-K-M-A-N]

The best approach is the Snyder/Watchmen approach: Its either you do it yourself and break your back doing it or let some other guy do it wrong.

*I still think Ratner did good.

[Electrix]

from what you said about THOR and his alleged dissatisfaction with X3's production/schedule, it sounds like he's too comfortable.

doesn't like to compromise, not a team player [team is spelled J-A-C-K-M-A-N]

Vaughn just likes to do things his way. With Kick-Ass no studio would fund it because of it's violence and they wanted to change things (eg. Turn the young girl into a love interest) so he went and made it himself. With X3 he wrote the script with Kinberg and Penn and the studio probably wanted to change too many things for his liking. Both writers said they had some battles, such as not having Jean a mute bystander for the second half of the film.

Brett Ratner, however, was just desperate to make a superhero film. He didn't really care which one aslong as he did one, which is one of the reasons X3 suffered slightly.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/19/exclusive-x-men-3-director-brett-ratner-says-theres-nothing-left-in-comics-for-him-to-adapt/

[Figs]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled brat'.


I've read a few interviews with him quite some time ago(I think it was when Stardust came out)where he said he clearly saw what a pile of **** and how big of a pooch screw X-3 was going to be and said that was the reason he dropped out.

All in all he was mentioning what a lot of us already heard...that the script was being worked on/finished during the **** ing filming.

Temper tantrum my ass. That was a director that did the smart thing and talked a bit of **** on Fox's part, which is usually justified.

[danoyse]

Hey everyone...this is getting wayyyy off-topic, so how about moving the discussion here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=466

[Peter McCabe]

I've read a few interviews with him quite some time ago(I think it was when Stardust came out)where he said he clearly saw what a pile of **** and how big of a pooch screw X-3 was going to be and said that was the reason he dropped out.

All in all he was mentioning what a lot of us already heard...that the script was being worked on/finished during the **** ing filming.

Temper tantrum my ass. That was a director that did the smart thing and talked a bit of **** on Fox's part, which is usually justified.

if that was his primary concern then that is yet more proof of his inability to take risks when making films, something I cant respect.

Some of the greatest films ever made went into production with incomplete scripts - including GLADIATOR.

*Rumble Fish was 3 weeks into principal photography without a SINGLE page. Coppola gave the actors copies of the book and Rourke was adlibbing 90% of his initial dialogue.

Vaughn is just too soft for guerilla film making aka REAL movie making.

[Figs]

if that was his primary concern then that is yet more proof of his inability to take risks when making films, something I cant respect.

Some of the greatest films ever made went into production with incomplete scripts - including GLADIATOR.

*Rumble Fish was 3 weeks into principal photography without a SINGLE page. Coppola gave the actors copies of the book and Rourke was adlibbing 90% of his initial dialogue.

Vaughn is just too soft for guerilla film making aka REAL movie making.


Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

[Peter McCabe]

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

You make it sound like it is an absolute recipe for failure.

It is not.

A script is a blueprint. Its supposed to evolve with time. actors will add things, writers will add things, the director will...

Vaughn sounds like he's one of those directors that starts panicking if one thing isn't in place.

I like his films, but not his attitude towards big budget blockbusters that require a little extra sweat to get right.

[Figs]

You make it sound like it is an absolute recipe for failure.

It is not.

A script is a blueprint. Its supposed to evolve with time. actors will add things, writers will add things, the director will...

Vaughn sounds like he's one of those directors that starts panicking if one thing isn't in place.

I like his films, but not his attitude towards big budget blockbusters that require a little extra sweat to get right.

I'll PM you since Danoyse already told us to take into another thread.

[Peter McCabe]

I'll PM you since Danoyse already told us to take into another thread.

good point http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

Actually, constantly pushing back a release date and NOT meeting said deadlines is the unprofessionalism, not actually MEETING a deadline.

You really need to stop looking at this from a fanboy perspective. It's a business.

You go into ANY business and see how they react to you not meeting deadlines - if they extend them so that you have all the time you need because you couldn't get the job done, or if they fire you for not doing your job and bring in someone else who can / will.

People act like these directors are such horribly treated victims.

They are employees. They are getting paid, by a movie studio, to get a job done. If they can't get the job done, they get fired.

These movies are an investment by the movie studios. They want results, not whiney crybabies who can't get the job done and cry for more time. I guarantee you that if I am given a deadline at my job that I can't meet, I'm out looking for another job.

These studios are making investments with these movies. They aren't giving the directors a forum to express their creativity. It's a job. It should be treated as such.

Vaughn to me comes off as the unprofessional one, not wanting to meet deadlines and such.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

good point http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.

Yup yup.

Sometimes it doesn't take 2, 2 and a half hours to tell a story.

[protocida]

Wolverine running with Leech in a backpack? :wow:

Care to elaborate? :grin:

[chaseter]

good point http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.
:dry:

[Ace of Knaves]

I won't be happy with anything less that 1hr 45. But saying that, if it is less, I won't write it off completely. As I've said before, they ain't exploring all of Logan's history. This is mainly about his Weapon X days. I would imagine if this is successful they will make a couple more, probably about Japan and Alpha Flight or something. Then we could look at all 3 films as one 6 hour long epic.

[chaseter]

1:45 without credits would be fine. 2 hours without credits would be perfect. 90 minutes is not good in any way no matter how much anyone tries to spin it.

[Microchip]

Yeah, with the money they're paying to make this movie and the calibre of acting it looks like the cast has given them, you'd think that they'd at least stretch it to an hour. We'll see though.

[Peter McCabe]

1:45 without credits would be fine. 2 hours without credits would be perfect. 90 minutes is not good in any way no matter how much anyone tries to spin it.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2828/melgibsonismadmax3.jpg

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Taken and Mad Max are examples of great 90 minute movies. Actually, I think I might have a Mad Max session tonight. Thanks for reminding me of his awesomness McCabe :up:

[chaseter]

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2828/melgibsonismadmax3.jpg
Since you are good at statistics, how many 90 minutes movies are actually great critically acclaimed films:huh: How many 90 minute movies are in the top 20 biggest box office successes of all time? Get to work with your abacus:cwink:

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but Chase, why does Wolverine have to be compared to all that? Can't you just watch it as a film and not compare it to others? Well, at least wait until AFTER you have seen it.

Obviously we would all prefer a 2 hour film. But why say "How many 90 minute films are in the top 20 box office successes of all time?" Who cares?

[chaseter]

You just compared it to Mad Max:dry: So saying that Mad Max was a good 90 minute movie means that this movie could be good when really...who cares???:o

[Ace of Knaves]

You just compared it to Mad Max:dry: So saying that Mad Max was a good 90 minute movie means that this movie could be good when really...who cares???:o

I didn't compare it. I just pointed out that there are some good 90 minute films out there, Mad Max being an example.

But I think bringing things like "Top 20 box office hits" into the argument is premature and silly to be honest. Who cares if it is or it isn't? I know I don't.

[Peter McCabe]

Yea Taken and Mad Max are examples of great 90 minute movies. Actually, I think I might have a Mad Max session tonight. Thanks for reminding me of his awesomness McCabe :up:

When I see Jackman in this movie, I see The Road Warrior http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1497/roadwarriorsg.jpg

I know at heart, Hugh's playing Mad Max.

[icelemt38]

Hugh himself has made that comparison before.

[protocida]

Actually, Hugh's playing Mad Max, Dirty Harry AND Han Solo.

With claws.

[Ace of Knaves]

Mad Max, one of the greatest characters ever IMO.

[WeaponXProject]

Actually, Hugh's playing Mad Max, Dirty Harry AND Han Solo.

With claws.


Hopefully, its less of Han and more of the other two.

[FaT_tONle]

I won't be happy with anything less that 1hr 45. But saying that, if it is less, I won't write it off completely. As I've said before, they ain't exploring all of Logan's history. This is mainly about his Weapon X days. I would imagine if this is successful they will make a couple more, probably about Japan and Alpha Flight or something. Then we could look at all 3 films as one 6 hour long epic.

Yeah sort of like the X-Men trilogy... as a whole :whatever:. How about giving me films that stand alone by themselves and making them epic in their own right like LOTR? Instead we got a hapass continuation of X-Men with TLS. Besides, I doubt we are getting two more Wolverine films.

[chaseter]

I didn't compare it. I just pointed out that there are some good 90 minute films out there, Mad Max being an example.

But I think bringing things like "Top 20 box office hits" into the argument is premature and silly to be honest. Who cares if it is or it isn't? I know I don't.
And I just pointed out that you can only point out 1 movie while I can point out dozens:o

Sorry to care that I want this movie to be great and be a box office success and critically acclaimed. Sorry to be cautious about a movie instead of blindly following everything they give us, not saying you do. The run time is the last key in that deciding factor. If it is short, it will probably suck. If it is average, it will probably be good to average. If it is long, then it has potential to be epic.

[Gamma Goliath]

for some reason this movie seems like a good 2 and a half hour film, but im sure fox will only let us see an hour and a half

[Downhere]

Yeah sort of like the X-Men trilogy... as a whole :whatever:. How about giving me films that stand alone by themselves and making them epic in their own right like LOTR? Instead we got a hapass continuation of X-Men with TLS. Besides, I doubt we are getting two more Wolverine films.

Considering the X-Men Franchise has been Fox's biggest property as of late, I would say we will most likely see another Wolverine film. Even if the movie sucks it will most likely pull in over 300-400 million worldwide and is usually a sure bet to do so.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yeah sort of like the X-Men trilogy... as a whole :whatever:. How about giving me films that stand alone by themselves and making them epic in their own right like LOTR? Instead we got a hapass continuation of X-Men with TLS. Besides, I doubt we are getting two more Wolverine films.

The LOTR films are not stand alone films...

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The LOTR films are not stand alone films...

I think he meant they stand on their own without you having to see the other movies to get the full story. Also, all of them were very epic in their own right, not just as a trilogy.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I've read a few interviews with him quite some time ago(I think it was when Stardust came out)where he said he clearly saw what a pile of **** and how big of a pooch screw X-3 was going to be and said that was the reason he dropped out.

All in all he was mentioning what a lot of us already heard...that the script was being worked on/finished during the **** ing filming.

Temper tantrum my ass. That was a director that did the smart thing and talked a bit of **** on Fox's part, which is usually justified.

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

These posts sum up my feelings perfectly, I dont blame Vaughn in the slightest for leaving as he knew it was going to be a ****-pile and it was. Yes man Ratner just want his name on a CB movie.

Yea but Chase, why does Wolverine have to be compared to all that? Can't you just watch it as a film and not compare it to others? Well, at least wait until AFTER you have seen it.

Obviously we would all prefer a 2 hour film. But why say "How many 90 minute films are in the top 20 box office successes of all time?" Who cares?

He is asking because majority of movies that 90 mins, especially by Fox, are extremely poor. Its a valid concern.

[THE MR. TERRIFIC]

2 hours should be enough time. No more...no less.

[protocida]

I think X2's running time would be fit for this.

[StarkTheProdigy]

It said in the tv spot they've been through 4 wars, along with all the major characters, and the origin itself, it needs to be atleast two hours, otherwise it won't be epic

[Peter McCabe]

It said in the tv spot they've been through 4 wars, along with all the major characters, and the origin itself, it needs to be atleast two hours, otherwise it won't be epic

The wars are a minimal part of the overall film's plot.

I'm guessing only about 30 minutes will go into the stuff prior to Weapon X.

The real film begins when Logan goes home and starts a life with Kayla.

*A movie under 2 hours can be epic:

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) 99 minutes

Dirty Harry (1971) 102 minutes

The French Connection (1971) 104 minutes

Death Wish (1974) 93 minutes

MAD MAX (1979) 94 minutes

The Road Warrior (1981) 93 minutes

Escape from New York (1981) 99 minutes

First Blood (1982) 94 minutes

ROBOCOP (1987) 102 minutes

Reservoir Dogs (1991) 99 minutes

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I think he meant they stand on their own without you having to see the other movies to get the full story. Also, all of them were very epic in their own right, not just as a trilogy.

You absolutely have to see the other LOTR movies to get the full story.

If you knew nothing about LOTR, and just popped in The Two Towers without having seen Fellowship of the Ring before it, and didn't watch Return of the King after it, you would have absolutely no clue wtf was going on.

The X-Men movies are the same way, to a lesser degree, as they all tell their own individual stories, that together tell a larger story.

It's a much better form of storytelling.

[Deaths Head II]

Lets see what we have:

Kid Logan.

Logan and Creed in the wars.

Logan and Creed in Team X.

Logan retiring with Silverfox until Logan vs Sabretooth round 1.

Logan getting adamantium and escaping.

Logan in New Orleans.

Logan in Three Mile Island.

I don't think comparing this to most films that are 2 hours would be right, because this plot is more loaded then most of those films. I don't see how they can pull it off under 2 hours without rushing some of these events.

[Peter McCabe]

Lets see what we have:

Kid Logan.

Logan and Creed in the wars.

Logan and Creed in Team X.

30 minutes.

Logan retiring with Silverfox until Logan vs Sabretooth round 1.

Logan getting adamantium and escaping.

30 minutes.

Logan in New Orleans.

Logan in Three Mile Island.

40 minutes.

[StarkTheProdigy]

The wars are a minimal part of the overall film's plot.

I'm guessing only about 30 minutes will go into the stuff prior to Weapon X.

The real film begins when Logan goes home and starts a life with Kayla.

*A movie under 2 hours can be epic:

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) 99 minutes

Dirty Harry (1971) 102 minutes

The French Connection (1971) 104 minutes

Death Wish (1974) 93 minutes

MAD MAX (1979) 94 minutes

The Road Warrior (1981) 93 minutes

Escape from New York (1981) 99 minutes

First Blood (1982) 94 minutes

ROBOCOP (1987) 102 minutes

Reservoir Dogs (1991) 99 minutes


good point, but i'd like to point out, to make a great superhero movie, it needs to be at least 2 hours, otherwise the story feels rushed imo.

under two hours:
fantastic four
rise of the silver surfer
xmen the last stand(i enjoyed it, although many despise it)

Two hours or over
Spiderman 2
X-2
Iron Man

all i'm saying is that it'd be awesome if wolverine was at least 2 hours

[Deaths Head II]

I can imagine 30 minutes for baby logan and the wars, but Team X? They have to show off Deadpool a bit before they surprise us with his return and they have to show them working together as well as build up to why Logan leaves the team. I would say Team X alone would add 10 minutes to that estimate.

30 minutes for Logan to get warned about Sabretooth, Silverfox to die, Logan versus Sabretooth, Stryker making the offer, the process itself, Logan's escape, Logan meeting with the Hudsons, and then Logan versus the helicoptor. There would have to be some rushing there.

Same thing with New Orleans and Three Mile Island. Logan meeting his old comrades Wraith and Blob and the insanity that will be the New Orleans battle. Logan then arriving on Three Mile Island, Logan being caught, Silver Fox being revealed, Silver Fox betraying Stryker, Wolverine busting everyone out, Wolverine battling Sabretooth, Wolverine and Sabretooth versus Deadpool, and then the entire finale with Logan's memory wipe. That would be some major rushing in 40 minutes.

As I said, I really think this plot is too loaded to be under 2 hours.

[chaseter]

30 minutes.



30 minutes.



40 minutes.
I like how you just pull numbers and statistics out of thin air:whatever:



The wars are a minimal part of the overall film's plot.

I'm guessing only about 30 minutes will go into the stuff prior to Weapon X.

The real film begins when Logan goes home and starts a life with Kayla.

*A movie under 2 hours can be epic:

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) 99 minutes

Dirty Harry (1971) 102 minutes

The French Connection (1971) 104 minutes

Death Wish (1974) 93 minutes

MAD MAX (1979) 94 minutes

The Road Warrior (1981) 93 minutes

Escape from New York (1981) 99 minutes

First Blood (1982) 94 minutes

ROBOCOP (1987) 102 minutes

Reservoir Dogs (1991) 99 minutes
Do you really want me to post all the good/great movies that were near or 2+ hours long in here??? No one says for 100% certainty that this movie will not be epic. I said that there are more chances that it won't be if it is 90 something minutes and you just proved that by posting a handful of short movies that were good.

[Peter McCabe]

good point, but i'd like to point out, to make a great superhero movie, it needs to be at least 2 hours, otherwise the story feels rushed imo.

see that's the thing, at heart this isn't a superhero movie.

Its an anti-hero movie.

anti-hero movies (like the 10 I mentioned earlier) are about a man on a mission that usually leads to his death or the death of someone else.

For some reason that mission doesn't usually need more than 90 minutes to cover.

*I've said many times that given Wolverine's 150 years of war, the film shoulda gone 50/50 and given the origin/wars/all other endeavours prior to Weapon X at least 90 minutes.

so my ideal running time would be 2 hours, 45 minutes.

[Peter McCabe]

I like how you just pull numbers and statistics out of thin air:whatever:

Thin air? Try common sense :cwink:

Do you really want me to post all the good/great movies that were near or 2+ hours long in here???

Dude TRY to list 10 anti-hero movies that go over 2 hours and that in some way influenced Jackman's protrayal/vision of Wolverine.

I'll give you one - The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976).

[Deaths Head II]

*A movie under 2 hours can be epic:

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) 99 minutes

Dirty Harry (1971) 102 minutes

The French Connection (1971) 104 minutes

Death Wish (1974) 93 minutes

MAD MAX (1979) 94 minutes

The Road Warrior (1981) 93 minutes

Escape from New York (1981) 99 minutes

First Blood (1982) 94 minutes

ROBOCOP (1987) 102 minutes

Reservoir Dogs (1991) 99 minutes

I would also like to point out most of those aren't "epic". Films like Dirty Harry and Death Wish are actually very reserved and use suspense. The trailers have shown us this is not how Wolverine will be. If it's as explosive and jam-packed as it looks and as short as a lot of these films it will feel rushed.

[chaseter]

Thin air? Try common sense :cwink:
This made me laugh so hard because you know exactly how long each of those plot arcs will take during the movie...I LOL'D HARD:hehe:



Dude TRY to list 10 anti-hero movies that go over 2 hours and that in some way influenced Jackman's protrayal/vision of Wolverine.

I'll give you one - The Outlaw Josey Wales.
I didn't know anti-hero was a genre of movies. This is a superhero movie and it is saddening that Jackman loves short movies and thinks that will be good for a movie with a group of characters rooted in over 3 decades of comic history.

[Peter McCabe]

I didn't know anti-hero was a genre of movies. This is a superhero movie and it is saddening that Jackman loves short movies and thinks that will be good for a movie with a group of characters rooted in over 3 decades of comic history.

Do you like Hugh Jackman's take on Wolverine?

Because it has little to do with the comic.

Just watch Mad Max and Dirty Harry and you'll have the recipe for what Jackman's been doing since X1.

[chaseter]

Do you like Hugh Jackman's take on Wolverine?

Because it has little to do with the comic.

Just watch Mad Max and Dirty Harry and you'll have the recipe for what Jackman's been doing since X1.
As some of you say, an actor has no say in his character...he does what is written for him.

Jackman plays Wolverine, not Jackman playing Wolverine playing Dirty Harry.

Yes, I do enjoy Jackman as Wolverine...was he the perfect choice, no but he has done a good job.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Do you like Hugh Jackman's take on Wolverine?

Because it has little to do with the comic.

Just watch Mad Max and Dirty Harry and you'll have the recipe for what Jackman's been doing since X1.

Well...if the shoe fits...

[Peter McCabe]

I would also like to point out most of those aren't "epic". Films like Dirty Harry and Death Wish are actually very reserved and use suspense. The trailers have shown us this is not how Wolverine will be. If it's as explosive and jam-packed as it looks and as short as a lot of these films it will feel rushed.

Have you seen The Road Warrior?

Its as explosive as any of the footage we've seen from this film.

[chaseter]

Have you seen The Road Warrior?

Its as explosive as any of the footage we've seen from this film.
Have you seen any Michael Bay movie?

[Peter McCabe]

Have you seen any Michael Bay movie?

I have and thank God Jackman doesn't do those kinds of movies :woot:

I'm expecting this movie to be very dry yet with a touch of Hollywood.

there's no reason an anti-hero movie can't work in an hour and 40 minutes.

they'll have to go easy on the wars, but didn't they shoot a war per day?

I think that's the main reason why we're not getting so much war footage, and this was something Hood and Jackman decided on long before principal photography.

[chaseter]

The wars are flashbacks I believe anyways.

[Peter McCabe]

The wars are flashbacks I believe anyways.

Gavin Hood is a master of flashbacks.

Rendition was one HUGE flashback.

*sometimes I wonder if this whole film is also one huge flashback that begins with Wolverine thinking about his past.

that would actually work wonders for a sequel, since the sequel can take off after that.

[chaseter]

I thought that the flashbacks occurred while he was getting his adamantium. Silver Fox is murdered, he goes in for the stuff, and we see all the war flashbacks.

[Peter McCabe]

I thought that the flashbacks occurred while he was getting his adamantium. Silver Fox is murdered, he goes in for the stuff, and we see all the war flashbacks.

that would make alotta sense, but it would kinda take us away from the picture for a bit.

I would prefer they show us the flashbacks in the beginning or as nostalgic thoughts like Michael Corleone's in Godfather Part II when we see the earlier stuff with DeNiro as Pacino sits alone thinking about the past.

[chaseter]

To me, the show opens with him killing his father, we then see him living happily with SilverFox who is then fake murdered. Wolverine is contacted by Stryker again (the first contact was when he asks the brothers to come in but we see that later in a flashback). Wolverine goes in and we see the flashbacks as he gets his adamantium. The big reveal is that Sabretooth was already in the program and he welcomes Logan, we see SilverFox again. The team does stuff, the team is disbanded, Sabretooth begins killing the team, Wolverine searches for members where he ends up in New Orleans, and then back to Stryker's base and the end battle at 3 mile island.

[Deaths Head II]

I thought that the flashbacks occurred while he was getting his adamantium. Silver Fox is murdered, he goes in for the stuff, and we see all the war flashbacks.

In the original script he gets flashbacks to his past in his dreams. I actually hope they keep some of that in because its a very ironic twist.

Post-Weapon X Logan can't remember his past and wants to, but pre-Weapon X Logan could never forget it. It also explains why he would be more willing to go through with the Adamantium bonding process.

"All the horrible things in your life..."

[TheVileOne]

Why do people keep touting around Mad Max movies like this is supposed to be a Mad Max movie?

This isn't ****ing Mad Max. Get a better argument.

What was every fan saying after X-men? "We want a longer movie!" They answered that with X-men 2 and it was freaking great.

The most successful comic book super hero movies are generally the ones that are longer. And most of the biggest successes in the history of cinema are LONGER movies.

[protocida]

I don't think the Team X scenes are flashbacks. It sounds like it all happens in real time.

[chaseter]

Of course the Team X scenes aren't flashbacks...I was talking about the war scenes being flashbacks.

[Peter McCabe]

Why do people keep touting around Mad Max movies like this is supposed to be a Mad Max movie?

This isn't ****ing Mad Max. Get a better argument.

What was every fan saying after X-men? "We want a longer movie!" They answered that with X-men 2 and it was freaking great.

The most successful comic book super hero movies are generally the ones that are longer. And most of the biggest successes in the history of cinema are LONGER movies.

This whole post is a waste of time.

You're basically skipping EVERYTHING we've been discussing to post a close-minded opinion that doesn't carry any real substance.

Jackman bases his portrayal of Wolverine on the classic anti-hero persona that is closest to MAD MAX.

Anti-hero movies usually run 90 - 100 Minutes and have survived the test of time with great critical acclaim MUCH MUCH more impressive than that of any comic book movie.

you need to look at this movie from a broader spectrum, or perhaps you need to start renting some of the movies I listed :cwink:

[protocida]

Of course the Team X scenes aren't flashbacks...I was talking about the war scenes being flashbacks.
But Team X happens right after Vietnam.

[sniktsnakt]

How much time before movies come out do we usually hear about the official time length?

[danoyse]

Gavin Hood is a master of flashbacks.

Rendition was one HUGE flashback.



Making one film that was a giant flashback doesn't make anyone a master of it. And in Rendition that whole flashback idea didn't work at all.

[Figs]

Jackman bases his portrayal of Wolverine on the classic anti-hero persona that is closest to MAD MAX.

Although I'm a fan of the Mad Max films...Jackman should have based his portayal of an already existing character(Wolverine)...on that character. I understand when actors take a bit of inspiration from past events/characters but all in all Wolverine is not Max. They may have similarities but that's mainly just in the fact that they're both anti-heroes.

Even if he did base Wolverine on Mad Max why does that mean they have to follow suit by going for the same runtime simply because it's an anti-hero film.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what your basically stating right? Since Jackman based it on Mad Max they decided to keep the runtime similar as well because it worked for 80's films?

Anti-hero movies usually run 90 - 100 Minutes and have survived the test of time with great critical acclaim MUCH MUCH more impressive than that of any comic book movie.

Yes, but all of those films you listed I own and love but realize that most of them were from the 70's & 80's. Times change, film and writing evolve. When it came to action films(not epics but blow stuff up or revenge films) back then it was expected to be short and sweet. Guy gets revenge for murdered/raped/kidnapped family, in short, main character was wronged...payback time.

Wolverine is an anti-hero but he's one that wasn't made up for a script. He has a lot of history(from the comics, which gave him a huge fanbase before any X-men films came out)and the characters they are putting in the film aren't just new characters as if you were to watch Robocop, Death Wish or Mad Max for the first time but existing characters from the comics who have quite a few fans themselves. They shouldn't be shortchanged by runtime.

you need to look at this movie from a broader spectrum, or perhaps you need to start renting some of the movies I listed :cwink:

You can say it's because the few of us need to look at the movie from a broader spectrum but it comes down to wanting action movies that are longer because it adds more depth and character development.

I'm keeping my expectations low so I won't be disappointed like with X-3. Even if it turns out good and is only 90 minutes that's great but expect a number of the supporting cast(who are well known comic characters to us fans)to get short changed like Angel in X-3.

[chaseter]

How much time before movies come out do we usually hear about the official time length?
When someone actually sits down and watches the movie I imagine. If it was around 2 hours I don't see why they would hide that information but if it were around 90 minutes then it would be beneficial for them to keep that from us.

[Peter McCabe]

Making one film that was a giant flashback doesn't make anyone a master of it. And in Rendition that whole flashback idea didn't work at all.

I really have no idea why you disliked Rendition so much.

everyone else I know that saw it liked it alot and really enjoyed the idea of the movie going in one big circle.

[TheVileOne]

This movie looks nothing like Mad Max.

People making excuses for the fact that they know that Fox doesn't like longer comic book super hero movies.

[protocida]

The official Run Time hasn't been revealed yet, has it?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why do people keep touting around Mad Max movies like this is supposed to be a Mad Max movie?

This isn't ****ing Mad Max. Get a better argument.

What was every fan saying after X-men? "We want a longer movie!" They answered that with X-men 2 and it was freaking great.

The most successful comic book super hero movies are generally the ones that are longer. And most of the biggest successes in the history of cinema are LONGER movies.

You can say it's because the few of us need to look at the movie from a broader spectrum but it comes down to wanting action movies that are longer because it adds more depth and character development.

I'm keeping my expectations low so I won't be disappointed like with X-3. Even if it turns out good and is only 90 minutes that's great but expect a number of the supporting cast(who are well known comic characters to us fans)to get short changed like Angel in X-3.

:up: Totally agree with both of you, taking influence from a movie doesnt mean you should copy its run-time, thats ridiculous. If Wolverine is anything less than 115 mins, count me out, as it will be the usual Fox ********.

[Peter McCabe]

Although I'm a fan of the Mad Max films...Jackman should have based his portayal of an already existing character(Wolverine)...on that character. I understand when actors take a bit of inspiration from past events/characters but all in all Wolverine is not Max. They may have similarities but that's mainly just in the fact that they're both anti-heroes.

Even if he did base Wolverine on Mad Max why does that mean they have to follow suit by going for the same runtime simply because it's an anti-hero film.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what your basically stating right? Since Jackman based it on Mad Max they decided to keep the runtime similar as well because it worked for 80's films?

Yes, but all of those films you listed I own and love but realize that most of them were from the 70's & 80's. Times change, film and writing evolve. When it came to action films(not epics but blow stuff up or revenge films) back then it was expected to be short and sweet. Guy gets revenge for murdered/raped/kidnapped family, in short, main character was wronged...payback time.

Wolverine is an anti-hero but he's one that wasn't made up for a script. He has a lot of history(from the comics, which gave him a huge fanbase before any X-men films came out)and the characters they are putting in the film aren't just new characters as if you were to watch Robocop, Death Wish or Mad Max for the first time but existing characters from the comics who have quite a few fans themselves. They shouldn't be shortchanged by runtime.

You can say it's because the few of us need to look at the movie from a broader spectrum but it comes down to wanting action movies that are longer because it adds more depth and character development.

I'm keeping my expectations low so I won't be disappointed like with X-3. Even if it turns out good and is only 90 minutes that's great but expect a number of the supporting cast(who are well known comic characters to us fans)to get short changed like Angel in X-3.

Great post Figs, I can tell you've actually seen the films.

I still think you're denying the concept of this film being a stand-alone anti-hero picture simply out of love and respect for the supporting mutant characters.

"I'm the guy who keeps Mr. Dead in his pocket."

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3788/mrdead.jpg

[Peter McCabe]

:up: Totally agree with both of you, taking influence from a movie doesnt mean you should copy its run-time, thats ridiculous. If Wolverine is anything less than 115 mins, count me out, as it will be the usual Fox ********.

Its not about "copying" running times.

the genre that JACKMAN'S Wolverine falls under is comprised of movies that are usually 90 -100 minutes long.

Dirty Harry didn't "copy" A Fistful of Dollars in running time.

MAD MAX didn't "copy" Death Wish in its running time.

These films are simply just able to tell their revenge story in an hour and 40 minutes.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Its not about "copying" running times.

the genre that JACKMAN'S Wolverine falls under is comprised of movies that are usually 90 -100 minutes long.

Dirty Harry didn't "copy" A Fistful of Dollars in running time.

MAD MAX didn't "copy" Death Wish in its running time.

These films are simply just able to tell their revenge story in an hour and 40 minutes.

EXACTLY, these films are just revenge stories, so dont need longer run-times, Wolverine is multiple stories spanning over 100 hundred years spanning many different times and characters. Its not a self-contained story like a revenge thriller. I honestly cant believe you are defending Fox.

For us to give a **** about the likes of Silver Fox, etc, we need time with them, so we care when they die, in a 90 min movie, you just CANT do that.

[protocida]

Its not about "copying" running times.

the genre that JACKMAN'S Wolverine falls under is comprised of movies that are usually 90 -100 minutes long.

Dirty Harry didn't "copy" A Fistful of Dollars in running time.

MAD MAX didn't "copy" Death Wish in its running time.

These films are simply just able to tell their revenge story in an hour and 40 minutes.
But those films didn't envolved a mutant Black Ops team, a secret governmental conspiracy and 150 years of immortal rivalry between two bloodthirsty men.

[TheVileOne]

This argument has become absolutely insane, and I think its very possible that McCabe is a Fox stooge.

[Peter McCabe]

EXACTLY, these films are just revenge stories, so dont need longer run-times, Wolverine is multiple stories spanning over 100 hundred years spanning many different times and characters. Its not a self-contained story like a revenge thriller. I honestly cant believe you are defending Fox.

For us to give a **** about the likes of Silver Fox, etc, we need time with them, so we care when they die, in a 90 min movie, you just CANT do that.

the only people you're gonna care about in this movie are the Logan brothers and Stryker.

The only reason you don't think this is "self-contained" is that there are names like Gambit, Deadpool and Maverick amongst the SUPPORTING cast.

If those names were replaced with "The Card Player","Mark Jones", etc, then you'd be saying something else.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But those films didn't envolved a mutant Black Ops team, a secret governmental conspiracy and 150 years of immortal rivalry between two bloodthirsty men.

Not to mention the experiments and capturing of mutants on a grand scale. and Silver Fox.

[TheVileOne]

Is Peter McCabe Simon Kinberg or one of the script doctors on the movie?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

the only people you're gonna care about in this movie are the Logan brothers and Stryker.

The only reason you don't think this is "self-contained" is that there are names like Gambit, Deadpool and Maverick amongst the SUPPORTING cast.

If those names were replaced with "The Card Player","Mark Jones", etc, then you'd be saying something else.

No I wouldnt, the reason it isnt self-contained is, regardless of those characters, the movie still has a **** load of plot strands that need to be complete by the end of the movie. Not to mention 150 years of history of TWO characters. Honestly.

[Peter McCabe]

This argument has become absolutely insane, and I think its very possible that McCabe is a Fox stooge.

say something meaningful for once please.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Is Peter McCabe Simon Kinberg or one of the script doctors on the movie?

Wouldnt surprise me!

[TheVileOne]

Well, I see your join date and your posts, and it just seems very fishy to me.

Studios do online and forum smoke screening and plants. The screenwriters of X-men 3 did it personally.

One of the cinematographers on Punisher Warzone educated me on how the God awful lighting in that movie wasn't NEON lighting.

Fox lied to SHH and said X-men 3 was two and a half hours.

So I wouldn't put Fox above any underhanded tactics.

[Figs]

Its not about "copying" running times.

the genre that JACKMAN'S Wolverine falls under is comprised of movies that are usually 90 -100 minutes long.

Dirty Harry didn't "copy" A Fistful of Dollars in running time.

MAD MAX didn't "copy" Death Wish in its running time.

These films are simply just able to tell their revenge story in an hour and 40 minutes.

That's the problem though McCabe.

Instead of looking at this project as a Wolverine movie first and foremost. (Meaning, he's a character that's been around for a good number of decades who has a lot of history not to mention a huge fanbase from the comics alone) The film makers(whether it's Hood, Benioff/Wein, Jackman or all Rothman) as well as the number of fans who seem to be happy accepting a really short and seemingly typical Fox film are looking at this film more as a revenge film...like Mad Max and some of the other ones you listed than a Wolverine film, where revenge is only part of it.

Another thing. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the reason those other films were able to tell their stories(and the reason why it worked and was perfectly fine/OK)was because those stories and characters were first created and came to life on the scripts.

I don't recall any of those characters from those 70's/80's films having a number of decades worth of history that the movies were based on. With those characters/films it started with someone who had an idea to have this guy almost die but then be brought back as a cyborg cop. Or have a cop who always got the **** end of the stick and was tougher and more of a badass than the rest of the cops hence the name Dirty Harry.

They were created on scripts to be made into film characters. It was up to the screenplay writer or creator(or even studio for that matter)where they figured they could make a good story for these characters only needing 90-100 minutes.

With Wolverine, yeah you can make a movie based on his history(or a portion of it)only lasting 90-100 minutes...but it really makes you have to shorten things and cut things out to fit that runtime. Not to mention shorten or cut existing characters within his history. But in Fox's case they add characters like Gambit simply because they know the fans have been wanting him.

Much like Emma Frost/White Queen, they won't be done much justice since they're mainly in there as fan bait being in a film that is and should be focusing on the main character(Wolverine) and the few people that are truly important to his story(Creed, Stryker, Silverfox).

People already complained about this for X-3 and I'll say what they essentially said. Some of us would much rather have Gambit replaced with some 'drinking card player' than throw him in to get the fans excited but only having him in one maybe two scenes with little to no character development.

[Peter McCabe]

No I wouldnt, the reason it isnt self-contained is, regardless of those characters, the movie still has a **** load of plot strands that need to be complete by the end of the movie. Not to mention 150 years of history of TWO characters. Honestly.

I'll give you the 150 years prior to Weapon X.

I myself wanted that material to be given ALOT more screentime.

thing is, THIS film, the main body of it, is about Logan's revenge after the procedure.

You really don't see how that can wrap up in 100 minutes?

There's really only ONE plot strand.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's the problem though McCabe.

Instead of looking at this project as a Wolverine movie first and foremost. (Meaning, he's a character that's been around for a good number of decades who has a lot of history not to mention a huge fanbase from the comics alone) The film makers(whether it's Hood, Benioff/Wein, Jackman or all Rothman) as well as the number of fans who seem to be happy accepting a really short and seemingly typical Fox film are looking at this film more as a revenge film...like Mad Max and some of the other ones you listed than a Wolverine film, where revenge is only part of it.

Another thing. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the reason those other films were able to tell their stories(and the reason why it worked and was perfectly fine/OK)was because those stories and characters were first created and came to life on the scripts.

I don't recall any of those characters from those 70's/80's films having a number of decades worth of history that the movies were based on. With those characters/films it started with someone who had an idea to have this guy almost die but then be brought back as a cyborg cop. Or have a cop who always got the **** end of the stick and was tougher and more of a badass than the rest of the cops hence the name Dirty Harry.

They were created on scripts to be made into film characters. It was up to the screenplay writer or creator(or even studio for that matter)where they figured they could make a good story for these characters only needing 90-100 minutes.

With Wolverine, yeah you can make a movie based on his history(or a portion of it)only lasting 90-100 minutes...but it really makes you have to shorten things and cut things out to fit that runtime. Not to mention shorten or cut existing characters within his history. But in Fox's case they add characters like Gambit simply because they know the fans have been wanting him.

Much like Emma Frost/White Queen, they won't be done much justice since they're mainly in there as fan bait being in a film that is and should be focusing on the main character(Wolverine) and the few people that are truly important to his story(Creed, Stryker, Silverfox).

:up: E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

[protocida]

Wolverine's revenge might be the central Plot, but it isn't the only one.

[TheVileOne]

Is McCabe trying to convince us or himself?

[Peter McCabe]

Is McCabe trying to convince us or himself?

All I'm saying is that this film CAN work at 100 minutes, hell even at 90.

Would it be better at 170 minutes? YES.

But we're not getting that.

[TheVileOne]

How do you know then?

At the end of the day, citing running times for Mad Max and Dirty Harry don't mean anything to this movie.

"The plot is too simple."

Because movies with simple plots NEVER have long running times.

[Peter McCabe]

How do you know then?

I dont get the question...

[Peter McCabe]

This movie looks nothing like Mad Max.

Have you actually seen the trilogy?

Get ready for a storm of side by side screencap comparisons :oldrazz:

[danoyse]

Have you actually seen the trilogy?

Get ready for a storm of side by side screencap comparisons :oldrazz:

Let's not.

This thread is about the runtime of the film. It's not the place to compare it to Mad Max, so please don't fill up the thread with screencaps.

[Peter McCabe]

Let's not.

This thread is about the runtime of the film. It's not the place to compare it to Mad Max, so please don't fill up the thread with screencaps.

I was joking.

[danoyse]

I was joking.

Good.

[chaseter]

PWN3R played with Kinberg or Penn, I forget, on Xbox Live and they lied to him about parts of the movie and the run time:(

[TheVileOne]

I'm convinced now more than ever that McCabe has some stake or involvement in the movie and was like the script doctor on Wolverine.

Also, people that were lied to by Fox shouldn't have been gullible enough to believe the. Its harsh, I know. But when the writing was on the wall people still were in denial.

[dark_b]

Well, I see your join date and your posts, and it just seems very fishy to me.

Studios do online and forum smoke screening and plants. The screenwriters of X-men 3 did it personally.

One of the cinematographers on Punisher Warzone educated me on how the God awful lighting in that movie wasn't NEON lighting.

Fox lied to SHH and said X-men 3 was two and a half hours.

So I wouldn't put Fox above any underhanded tactics.thats interesting. :wow:

[danoyse]

I'm convinced now more than ever that McCabe has some stake or involvement in the movie and was like the script doctor on Wolverine.

:whatever:

You once accused me of being a Fox plant too.

I think McCabe is just...overly excited.

[LastSunrise1981]

:whatever:

You once accused me of being a Fox plant too.

I think McCabe is just...overly excited.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have connections in the entertainment industry?

Not saying Vile is right or anything, but it wouldn't be the first time a studio places a plant on a message forum to try and quell worries by lying. Heck I remember when some mysterious poster showed a very well written fan-fic of Scott surviving X3. Said poster stated it was from the film and people should look for it as an extra scene.

But in all honesty I can't see Fox sending a plant for Wolverine. Only way I can see them using one is for the run time, I can't see them using it for anything else since everything about the film has been more or less confirmed to be factual.

[danoyse]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have connections in the entertainment industry?

Not saying Vile is right or anything, but it wouldn't be the first time a studio places a plant on a message forum to try and quell worries by lying. Heck I remember when some mysterious poster showed a very well written fan-fic of Scott surviving X3. Said poster stated it was from the film and people should look for it as an extra scene.

But in all honesty I can't see Fox sending a plant for Wolverine. Only way I can see them using one is for the run time, I can't see them using it for anything else since everything about the film has been more or less confirmed to be factual.

That doesn't make me a plant. Plenty of people here have connections to the entertainment industry. That doesn't make them plants.

[TheVileOne]

That doesn't mean Peter McCabe isn't a plant :D .

It was hard not to believe that 3 years ago Danyose. Sorry.

[Downhere]

:whatever:

I think McCabe is just...overly excited.

Really? I couldn't tell. :hehe:

[Peter McCabe]

That doesn't mean Peter McCabe isn't a plant :D .

I'm flattered :yay:

*if I was workin for FOX, I would report back to them and say "You guys need to put Storm back in because these people want a 2 hour movie." :oldrazz:

[danoyse]

That doesn't mean Peter McCabe isn't a plant :D .

It was hard not to believe that 3 years ago Danyose. Sorry.

How about we stop accusing anyone of being a plant? You were utterly wrong then, and you're wrong now.

[EnDz0n3]

I really blame Lauren Shuler-Donner for this whole mess...even if it is true that it's wayyyyyy under 2 hours, what did she expect saying what she said non chalantly. Fox should really get their act together...

[icelemt38]

I really blame Lauren Shuler-Donner for this whole mess...even if it is true that it's wayyyyyy under 2 hours, what did she expect saying what she said non chalantly. Fox should really get their act together...

I agree 100%.

[topdog1]

But in all honesty I can't see Fox sending a plant for Wolverine.

If any studio sends plants to the Hype then they have too much money to burn. Fact is that they have 99.9% of us in the bag anyway. We're all going to pay to see this movie. If we like it, a lot of us will see it multiple times. Plants here would be a waste.

[TheVileOne]

How about we stop accusing anyone of being a plant? You were utterly wrong then, and you're wrong now.
What was I wrong about?

Because I remember being pretty right about everything wrong in X3.

[chaseter]

Yeah:(

[Mr Writer1981]

Do we have any actual facts about the runtime other than what Shuler-Donner allegedly said? I know IMDB has the movie down as 120mins. Other then Donner's comments what evidence do we have to suggest it's going to be short?

[Ace of Knaves]

Na there is no facts yet.

[Neptune]

Do we have any actual facts about the runtime other than what Shuler-Donner allegedly said? I know IMDB has the movie down as 120mins. Other then Donner's comments what evidence do we have to suggest it's going to be short?

120 minutes is the minimum. This movie seems to be packed with lots of characters and backstory. Rushing it in 90 mins means that they haven't learned **** from X-3's runtime. Which may very well be the case.

[dark_b]

there are no facts.

but the fact that she said under 2 hours could mean a lot.
a)she doesnt care what fans think.
b)or she is dumb enough to not be aware how much people hated the runtime from x-3.

[danoyse]

What was I wrong about?

Because I remember being pretty right about everything wrong in X3.

You are wrong when you are accusing people of being plants. I'm not going to warn you about this again.

[Mr Writer1981]

Maybe Shuler-Donner was talking about an earlier cut of the movie or maybe she was misquoted or it was taken out of context? If her comments are the only thing fuelling this fear that the movie is going to be 90 mins then let's just wait and see. Like most people on this site I'd be very disappointed if it was only 90 mins. I'd happily sit through a 3-hour Wolverine epic, but judging from the extremely fast pace of the footage we've seen so far balanced against the epic nature of some of the historical scenes I'd say we're looking at roughly two hours.

I think the flashbacks and war scenes won't actually have much screentime tho, which is a shame, but I think they'll speed through these sections when Logan is dreaming/and undergoing the adamantium bonding process etc.

Anyway, long story short I'm keeping my fingers crossed for 120 mins...

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'll give you the 150 years prior to Weapon X.

I myself wanted that material to be given ALOT more screentime.

thing is, THIS film, the main body of it, is about Logan's revenge after the procedure.

You really don't see how that can wrap up in 100 minutes?

There's really only ONE plot strand.

There isnt really only one plot strand, because Logan's childhood, his family issues, not to mention the weapon X stuff and Silver Fox all add up to A LOT more than one plot strand. You could make a movie on his childhood alone, so the only way to get that into a 100 min run-time is to cut important scene's out, by doing that, they have already ****ed up the movie and we have another X3 on our hands. IF the movie is 100 mins. After Street Fighter and Dragonball i'm not even expecting that!

[Downhere]

Maybe Shuler-Donner was talking about an earlier cut of the movie or maybe she was misquoted or it was taken out of context?

It wasn't taken out of context or misquoted considering there was audio of her saying it.

[protocida]

There we're rumors that Fox edited the movie as 90/100 minutes to make it more Family Friendly, but, after the dark and broading The Dark Knight's sucess, they re-edited the movie to fit Gavin Hood's original vision, longer, darker and edgier.

I don't know if it's truth, but maybe...

[Ace of Knaves]

The thing that gives me hope for this not being your typical Fox 90 minute flick is that surely, surely they have learnt their lessons?

They have had their asses kicked by Marvel and Warners recently. Surely they will look at their films and think "So maybe the audiences do like longer, more intelligent comic book block busters?"

I know it is Fox, but I just can't see a mega corporation that is in the business of making money, fail to match or try to beat it's rivals. That's what it is all about. They have to realize that to get back up there they will have to put the same amount of effort in, if not more, than the rivals that have beat them.

If they don't? Well more fool them, because hopefully after TDK, Iron Man and others, the audiences know they should be getting more, and when they don't, let it be known.

[Raiden]

The thing that gives me hope for this not being your typical Fox 90 minute flick is that surely, surely they have learnt their lessons?

They have had their asses kicked by Marvel and Warners recently. Surely they will look at their films and think "So maybe the audiences do like longer, more intelligent comic book block busters?"

I know it is Fox, but I just can't see a mega corporation that is in the business of making money, fail to match or try to beat it's rivals. That's what it is all about. They have to realize that to get back up there they will have to put the same amount of effort in, if not more, than the rivals that have beat them.

If they don't? Well more fool them, because hopefully after TDK, Iron Man and others, the audiences know they should be getting more, and when they don't, let it be known.

I think you overestimate Fox and their ability to see the errors of their ways. If they were smart, they won't have promoted Rothman to a higher position, would they?

[Figs]

There we're rumors that Fox edited the movie as 90/100 minutes to make it more Family Friendly, but, after the dark and broading The Dark Knight's sucess, they re-edited the movie to fit Gavin Hood's original vision, longer, darker and edgier.

I don't know if it's truth, but maybe...

Where did you hear this?

Just wondering because I don't recall ever hearing this until just now from you.

[Ace of Knaves]

I think you overestimate Fox and their ability to see the errors of their ways. If they were smart, they won't have promoted Rothman to a higher position, would they?


Fair point. But with Rothman higher up he probably won't be able to get as "hands on" with films as he usually does.

[TheVileOne]

Fox hasn't learned any lessons. Look at Dragon Ball.

McCabe, look what I found on IMDB:

For A Few Dollars More: 132 minutes

The Good The Bad And The Ugly: 161 minutes, extended cut 181 minutes

[Ace of Knaves]

I wouldn't use Dragonball as an example. It was never a potential tent pole like Wolverine. It was never gonna be a big money maker for Fox, so why put loads of effort into it?

Wolverine could be a massive money maker for them. If they do it well.

[Ace of Knaves]

frickin double

[TheVileOne]

I wouldn't use Dragonball as an example. It was never a potential tent pole like Wolverine. It was never gonna be a big money maker for Fox, so why put loads of effort into it?

That's hilarious considering all the Dragon Ball marks talking about Dragon Ball being the most searched on yahoo or google and having such a huge worldwide following.

Fox still put over $100 million.

I still feel that the movie never should've been made. Not everything can be a movie.

Dragon Ball is still proof on how they can ruin a generally profitable money-making franchise.

[Ace of Knaves]

Who cares about search results on google or whatever. Doesn't mean it has any possibility to be a big, blockbusting film.

This film has. I think Fox know that, they must do. No one can be stupid. So if they want to **** up a possible huge money maker, that's their problem.

[dark_b]

FOX hasnt learned. and yes DB is a good example. its a big budget FOX movie.

may payne was short and edited like people were high.
they realesed a PG13 version of taken
AB babylon. the movie is edited and cut down that its already pathetic.

i mean should i go on?

[dark_b]

edit

[FaT_tONle]

DB can not be big budget as bad as those graphics look. 100 million??? No way...

[TheVileOne]

Its directed by James Wong.

And they had to spend a lot to put it into production during the writer's strike.

[Peter McCabe]

McCabe, look what I found on IMDB:

For A Few Dollars More: 132 minutes

The Good The Bad And The Ugly: 161 minutes, extended cut 181 minutes

http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I never denied there were great revenger westerns/crime dramas that are over 100 minutes. I even threw Chaseter a bone with The Outlaw Josey Wales.

You also got:

Nevada Smith (1966)

Once Upon a Time in The West (1968)

The Getaway (1972)

High Plains Drifter (1972)

Serpico (1973)

Charlie Varrick (1973)

Magnum Force (1973)

Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

The Gauntlet (1977)

Tightrope (1984)

there's a ton of great antihero movies over a hundred minutes, but the most memorable ones are usually 90 -100 minutes long.

My personal favorite is 100 minutes long, and the alternate version of it (director's cut) is 90:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7185/melgibsonisporterinpayb.jpg

synopsis: Porter has been a professional robber since his teens. His first big hit landed him in front of a judge who gave him the choice of 20 years behind bars or a tour of duty in WWII. Porter became a Marine and was thrown into combat until the end of the war. Once back home, Porter pulls his second great score - unfortunately it lands him in jail for over a decade. Once out, Porter sharpens his skills and prominently pulls jobs for many years in the city of Chicago - that is until he agrees to rob the Chinese mob with his buddy Val. After a heist for $140 Grand, Val and Porter's wife Lynn betray Porter and leave him for dead. 5 months later Porter's back and he wants blood...

100 Minutes.

[TheVileOne]

Payback, are you kidding me? Good God.

Also a lot of these movies you are listing honestly have no relevance to a comic book super hero movie like Wolverine. Sure I'm sure there are certain influences or inspiration, but that doesn't mean a story that spans as much as Wolverine and supposedly wants to introduce new characters for new spinoffs and movies should NOT be short-changed.

[Peter McCabe]

Payback, are you kidding me? Good God.

Also a lot of these movies you are listing honestly have no relevance to a comic book super hero movie like Wolverine. Sure I'm sure there are certain influences or inspiration, but that doesn't mean a story that spans as much as Wolverine and supposedly wants to introduce new characters for new spinoffs and movies should NOT be short-changed.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

you are too close minded to truly see this movie the way the creators intended for you to see it.

that saddens me because it proves that despite recent gems like The Dark Knight - a film that borrowed heavily from the crime drama genre instead of just using the source material as a bible, STILL wasn't enough to eliminate this narrow view people have today that wants comic book movies to be nothing more than "comic book movies".

Hugh Jackman has been giving Wolverine an on-screen identity far beyond that of the character from the comics for 10 years.

His take on the character, a persona that Brian Singer helped create, is most probably the reason we even have all these comic book movies today.

That would suggest that change, that deviation from the source material by gathering inspiration from OTHER venues, is the reason these films have worked.

Edward Norton took more from Bill Bixby than he ever did from the comic. Heath Ledger took more from Malcolm McDowell than he did from the comic. Hugh Jackman continues to take more from antiheroes like Mad Max than he does from the comic.

stop being so close minded and get over this comic book movie agenda you have that is clearly limiting your enjoyment of this film. Open your mind to a world where comic book movies are more than replicas of their source material :cwink:

[danoyse]

Peter McCabe, quit calling people close-minded just because they disagree with you. There's no reason for that.

[Peter McCabe]

Peter McCabe, quit calling people close-minded just because they disagree with you. There's no reason for that.

So let me get this straight Danoyse,

Hugh Jackman dedicates the majority of his acting career to give a two dimensional comic book character with no no voice like Wolverine - a soul, a heart, a cause, and a film franchise - but The Vile One feels that in the end, all of that which Jackman has done is just "irrelevant" because ALL Wolverine should be is "a comic book movie superhero".

If that's not being close minded, then you tell me what is.

[danoyse]

So let me get this straight Danoyse,

Hugh Jackman dedicates the majority of his acting career to give a two dimensional comic book character with no no voice like Wolverine - a soul, a heart, a cause, and a film franchise - but The Vile One feels that in the end, all of that which Jackman has done is just "irrelevant" because ALL Wolverine should be is "a comic book movie superhero".

If that's not being close minded, then you tell me what is.

That's not what VileOne is saying at all, and disagreeing with another poster does not give you the right to call them close-minded.

Either agree to disagree and move on, or continue the discussion in a respectful manner. Those are your only options, and you're out of warnings about this.

[Peter McCabe]

That's not what VileOne is saying at all, and disagreeing with another poster does not give you the right to call them close-minded.

Did you read his post???

Either agree to disagree and move on, or continue the discussion in a respectful manner. Those are your only options, and you're out of warnings about this.

Question, do YOU agree with Vile One's opinion on this?

Do you believe ALL Jackman's Wolverine should be - is a comic book movie superhero and nothing more?

[danoyse]

Did you read his post???



Question, do YOU agree with Vile One's opinion on this?

Do you believe ALL Jackman's Wolverine should be - is a comic book movie superhero and nothing more?

We're not talking about what I agree with or not, I'm talking about showing respect for other posters, even when you vehemently disagree with each other. Calling another poster close-minded is not acceptable.

[Spider-Vader]

There we're rumors that Fox edited the movie as 90/100 minutes to make it more Family Friendly, but, after the dark and broading The Dark Knight's sucess, they re-edited the movie to fit Gavin Hood's original vision, longer, darker and edgier.

I don't know if it's truth, but maybe...

If this is true I will be really happy. Gets my hopes up for a good Deadpool spin-off & a good Daredevil re-boot.

[TheVileOne]

No. I'm saying those movies are not relevant to what the running time of Wolverine should be.

Wolverine is not the same type of movie. It's a comic book super hero movie. And obviously I think more highly of those than you do since I think they can be A LOT MORE than what your idols at 20th Century Fox make them to be.

Garbage like X-men 3.

[Peter McCabe]

We're not talking about what I agree with or not, I'm talking about showing respect for other posters, even when you vehemently disagree with each other. Calling another poster close-minded is not acceptable.

Danoyse why is it so hard for you to answer a question?

You moderate a Wolverine board where arguments are bound to take place and all you do is break them up.

Instead of just telling me to stop calling Vile One close-minded, why don't you say your own piece on the matter?

being a moderator doesn't prevent you from having an opinion.