Official Running Time: 130 minutes.

[Juggernaut33]

http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=129477.html

Official running time: 130 minutes...that's, uh, 2h10min...for those of you who might think that 130 minutes = 1h30min, and believe me, I've seen plenty on this board in my days!

[R_Hythlodeus]

that's a good running time.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Thats very good, better than it being 90 mins like Fox used to do with all of their movies.

[ultimatefan]

It´s a good running time to tell the story without rushing things and/or leaving a lot of important stuff in the editing room like Fox tends to do. In that aspect, Marvel Studios is far better.

[Ipodman]

Yay more is better!!!

[Spider-ManHero12]

Awesome news! I love when comic book films are over 2 hours.

[CaptainStacy]

Sounds good!

[LuisTX85]

Good news to me!,I'd actually like for it to be longer in a director's cut or something But 2 hrs is great and better than I expected.

[Blackman]

Pretty good. Wasnt IM around 2 hours and some change?

[Iron_Stark]

Pretty good. Wasnt IM around 2 hours and some change?

126 and 125 for IM1 and IM2, respectively.

This is a good running time.

[Flemm]

Sounds about right. Long enough to feel like you're getting an epic tale, not so long that you feel like you need a bathroom break :woot:

[BigThor]

http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=129477.html

Official running time: 130 minutes...that's, uh, 2h10min...for those of you who might think that 130 minutes = 1h30min, and believe me, I've seen plenty on this board on my days!

Is this "with" or "without" the credits?

[Juggernaut33]

Is this "with" or "without" the credits?

Huh, with, I guess.

[jacobed]

126 and 125 for IM1 and IM2, respectively.

This is a good running time.
Wow IM2 was shorter than IM1 certainly didn't seem like it. Anyways that is the perfect run time.

[The Cocreator]

Sounds good, until now i wasn't that exited with the trailer but if the film is longer then they'll have time to make the film not suck

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It´s a good running time to tell the story without rushing things and/or leaving a lot of important stuff in the editing room like Fox tends to do. In that aspect, Marvel Studios is far better.

TIH, IM2? Both should have been a lot longer, i'm no fan of Fox but Marvel arent the best for run-time's either.

[Doctor Jones]

A fine running time. It's just enough, and a few minutes longer than IM and IM2.

[Angamb]

great!

Longer than Ironman, I like it.

Thor should be an epic movie, so this running time its perfect, specially for an origin story.

[R_Hythlodeus]

do the 130 min. include the post-credit scene?

[EternalMaster]

It includes the trailers, credits, after-credit scene, and your drive to the theater. ;)

[The Cocreator]

I hope captain america has this running time too, look at what other films the director did, one of the things that made Jurassic Park suck was it only being 90 minutes long, if cap is less than 100 minutes long it may easily suck.

[Gamma Burst]

Excellent running time!

[piccolo]

That is AWESOME. The longer the better.

[Mrpaul]

That's great, always like when movies are two hours or more pending how good they are, which Thor will be

[StarkTheProdigy]

Two hours is great for a superhero/comic book film in my opinion. It gives me a little comfort that the movie will provide a decent story and exceptional character development, not saying it will for sure, but two hours adds some comfort that it is possible.

[Tony Stark]

TIH, IM2? Both should have been a lot longer, i'm no fan of Fox but Marvel arent the best for run-time's either.

Spider-man 3, a 139 minute film that should have been cut by 19 minutes. Longer doesn't mean better, shorter doesn't mean bad. It's all about how the story is told and how it's put together.

[Silvermoth]

Excellent! It's good value for money that way. Plenty of time to enjoy yourself.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Spider-man 3, a 139 minute film that should have been cut by 19 minutes. Longer doesn't mean better, shorter doesn't mean bad. It's all about how the story is told and how it's put together.

:huh: If anything Spidey 3 should have been longer than it was, hence why people have been clamouring for a longer cut since the movie was released, and both TIH and IM2 should have been AT LEAST 15 mins longer.

[NickNitro]

I said something in this post completely stupid. disregard it. already deleted it but just incase someone happened to see it. I feel like a dumb@$$ lol

[Sgt.Pepper]

Wow, I haven't notice this until recently. 2 hours and 10 minutes is a perfect running time for me.

[Prison Mike]

Great running time. I have a feeling this movie will be just as good as the first Iron Man.

[Spider-Vader]

This is the perfect running time. Though, hopefully we'll be asking for more after the credits.

[DieSmiling]

Solid running time. Anything over two hoursnisngood by me.

[steintym]

I was hoping for at least 2 hours. This is even better. Much under 2 hours would have been way too short for everything they want to include.

[RichardMoore]

Spider-man 3, a 139 minute film that should have been cut by 19 minutes. Longer doesn't mean better, shorter doesn't mean bad. It's all about how the story is told and how it's put together.

Spider-Man 3 should have been 3 hours and should have had a lot less in it than it did (Venom, Sandman being the killer, Harry dying). Although if Harry did have to die, then slowly ratchet up the drama until it reaches its climax at the conclusion of 3-hours. Completely exclude Venom, let Sandman be a cool villain without a cheap connection to Peter's past, and bring the confrontation between Peter and Harry to a head in a SATISFYING way that entertains those who have been watching this rocky relationship evolve for the past 5 years. But NOOOOOO...that's not how it went.

[BigThor]

Great running time. I have a feeling this movie will be just as good as the first Iron Man.

I sure hope it is, except with MUCH better action scenes.

[Vartha]

I want to at least HEAR where the heck Balder is.
With all the Asgardian Guards with Helmets Like Simonson's Balder, I wouldn't be a BIT surprised if he's one of them being hid out in the open basically so nobody can start Ragnarok easily.

[BigThor]

I want to at least HEAR where the heck Balder is.
With all the Asgardian Guards with Helmets Like Simonson's Balder, I wouldn't be a BIT surprised if he's one of them being hid out in the open basically so nobody can start Ragnarok easily.

Whenever Balder does appear in a sequel I hope he has his light projection powers, because I don't want them to portray him as "just another Asgardian".

I still want to see Heimdall emitting cosmic flames from his sword, I don't see why that wasn't included in the film.

[Vartha]

Well so far Kenneth has tip toed around every question about Balder lol So I really don't know what to think.
I like the idea of Balder and Blake being the same guy like in Ultimate Thor run, since they've said Thor wouldn't be merged with Blake.
On the other hand I also like what (I think it was Flemm that said this) it COULD be that Balder is INSIDE Destroyer, but if that's the case....whoooooo boy.

[BigThor]

Have you seen the new GL tv spots Vartha?

[Vartha]

Just that one from the other day.

[BigThor]

Well did you see this shot? It would be great if something like this happens to Thor during the fight with The Destroyer.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/5162/fggfa.gif

I would also like to see Thor lift large objects like this atleast once or twice during a fight scene.

http://i51.tinypic.com/hsp5co.gif

[Vartha]

no I did see those, but yeah having Thor do similar stuff with Destroyer WOULD be cool.

[BigThor]

Yeah it would, hopefully they added something like those during the actual filming of the movie.

[Tony Stark]

:huh: If anything Spidey 3 should have been longer than it was, hence why people have been clamouring for a longer cut since the movie was released, and both TIH and IM2 should have been AT LEAST 15 mins longer.

No one's been clamouring for a longer Spider-man 3. It needed to go to the cutting room. Get rid of the singing, get rid of the crying, get rid of the emo-dance, and the piano playing, get rid of the play by play announcing in the final fight.

Spider-man 3 wasn't a bad movie because it was long enough, it was a bad movie because there was only two hours of content packed in to 2 hours and 20 minutes.

[antonydelfini]

I can't wait for Thor to be the new favorite heroes of kids. It felt great seeing kids becoming Iron Man fan boys when the 1st movie came out, I hope we see the same thing happen with Thor.

[Vartha]

Yeah My son is the same way, my Daughter not so much but both love the superhero movies.

[StarkTheProdigy]

It's so exciting that it comes out a month from today :)

[BigThor]

It's so exciting that it comes out a month from today :)

Same here:thor:

[Vartha]

Yeah I can't WAIT to see this. It just stinks I can't watch it on an IMAX without traveling 3 hours to one. :(

[Drz]

130 minutes is a good running time.

[BigThor]

Yeah I can't WAIT to see this. It just stinks I can't watch it on an IMAX without traveling 3 hours to one. :(

I'm gonna see Thor on IMAX the 2nd time I go to see it.

[Vartha]

lucky dog. Wish I knew someone up here willing to put in for gas to go see it

[BigThor]

lucky dog. Wish I knew someone up here willing to put in for gas to go see it

Yep, I just found out that my local theater plays IMAX as well.

[High Voltage]

lucky dog. Wish I knew someone up here willing to put in for gas to go see it

Do you accept paypal? :cwink:

[Microchip]

Just for a complete comparison:
Iron Man - 126 min
The Incredible Hulk - 112 min
Iron Man 2 - 125 min
Thor - 130 min

[Vartha]

Do you accept paypal? :cwink:
hahaha are you a neighbor HV? Living near by possibly? lol

[Green Day]

:huh: If anything Spidey 3 should have been longer than it was, hence why people have been clamouring for a longer cut since the movie was released, and both TIH and IM2 should have been AT LEAST 15 mins longer.
I think Spider-Man 3 should been made into two movies.
Part 1
-Creation of Sandman to when Eddie becomes Venom
Part 2
- Expand more on the story and have final fight between Venom and Spider-Man

each part could have been around 2hrs long. They should redone the whole emo peter parker. Have better fight between Spider-Man and Goblin.
could had the films out in 2007 & 2008.

[BigThor]

Just for a complete comparison:
Iron Man - 126 min
The Incredible Hulk - 112 min
Iron Man 2 - 125 min
Thor - 130 min

Now that I think about it, TIH was short as hell compared to the rest of their films.

[StarkTheProdigy]

My friend's dad is getting to see an early showing of this tonight...oh how I envy him right now...

[Vartha]

NICE, Wish I knew people who get to see an early showing.

[StarkTheProdigy]

I know, I'm going ask my friend questions, just about basic things, I don't want any huge spoilers, but I'm excited!

[Antonello Blueberry]

Now that I think about it, TIH was short as hell compared to the rest of their films.
There were 20 minutes of mostly boring scenes cut from the theatrical release. The intro shouldn't have been cut though.

[Vartha]

I'm wondering what extras we'll be getting on the DVD.
Granted alot of us have seen the script, but, that doesn't cover reshoots, and what might have been in the film and cut for various reasons.

I for one will be getting the BEST DVD for THIS film, that's for sure.

[Microchip]

There were 20 minutes of mostly boring scenes cut from the theatrical release. The intro shouldn't have been cut though.
Yeah, I think a better version of the movie would have had the intro, which would transition into the credits montage, and then maybe keep the parts with Doc Samson, I thought those were pretty good. Everything else did kind of drag it a bit.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No one's been clamouring for a longer Spider-man 3. It needed to go to the cutting room. Get rid of the singing, get rid of the crying, get rid of the emo-dance, and the piano playing, get rid of the play by play announcing in the final fight.

Spider-man 3 wasn't a bad movie because it was long enough, it was a bad movie because there was only two hours of content packed in to 2 hours and 20 minutes.

Lots of people have been clamouring for a longer cut of the movie, there has even been an survey asking for signatures of people who want one, and loads have signed it, just go to the Spidey boards and see the amount of threads asking for a longer cut of the movie.

[Chewy]

Yeah but there are also surveys clamoring for Tom Welling to star in a Superman movie, so that doesn't really mean anything

Btw the movie is 114 minutes, not 130 minutes

[rashad]

Yeah it says 114 min here. The BBFC is official as it gets. We'll see.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF275252

[Sgt.Pepper]

I'm totally fine with that running time.

[R_Hythlodeus]

I'm totally fine with that running time.
Thank god, I was worried for a few seconds...

[Sgt.Pepper]

Thank god, I was worried for a few seconds...

It was nice of you to care. :oldrazz:

[Lord]

My friend's dad is getting to see an early showing of this tonight...oh how I envy him right now...
Did you ask him anything already?

[Deadpool876]

Aye! Can not wait to watch thee! :)

[BigThor]

114 minutes? Wtf?

[StarkTheProdigy]

Did you ask him anything already?

Not yet, I'm going to talk to him tonight! If there's any questions, I can message you without giving away huge spoilers!

[Spider-Vader]

Oh god, I hope it's not 114 minutes.

[StarkTheProdigy]

I'll find out tomorrow how long it is for sure.

[BigThor]

Oh god, I hope it's not 114 minutes.

That's exactly how I feel Spider-Vader :wall:.

[rashad]

ArcLight Cinemas says 115 min.
https://www.arclightcinemas.com/ArcLight/faces/ComingSoon.jsp?movieType=ComingSoonNoSession&headerLabel=onSaleSoon

So there's obviously conflicting reports.

[BigThor]

I just hope it actually turns out to be 130 minutes.

[Passdom]

If the BBFC says the movie is 114 minutes, then it is 114 minutes. Period.

BBFC are basically the MPAA of the UK.

[rashad]

BBFC are basically the MPAA of the UK.

Agreed.

[BigThor]

That's just stupid as hell, this movie has waaaay too much going on to be as short as 114 minutes.

[Randal Graves]

Damn.

But I did like TIH (short run time) more than Iron Man, so it could be all good. :)

[BigThor]

Damn.

But I did like TIH (short run time) more than Iron Man, so it could be all good. :)

Not me , I liked Iron Man's running time ALOT better than TIH's.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Same here, always felt TIH was well too short compared to IM, dissapointing news this, hopefully the movie is still good though.

[Vartha]

That's just stupid as hell, this movie has waaaay too much going on to be as short as 114 minutes.
I'm wondering how that running time is measured tho.
is that BBFC time from the actual beginning title to AFTER the credits or is it the content between the title and credits?

Then you have slightly different versions in other Countries. One example is Germany's TIH had certain scenes cut in the Theater. The part of the scene where Abomination's elbow goes into Hulk was cut.

[rashad]

I'm wondering how that running time is measured tho.
is that BBFC time from the actual beginning title to AFTER the credits or is it the content between the title and credits?

Then you have slightly different versions in other Countries. One example is Germany's TIH had certain scenes cut in the Theater. The part of the scene where Abomination's elbow goes into Hulk was cut.

BBFC said no cuts were made.

[Vartha]

then is it between the title and credits basically actual content and not text they count?

[rashad]

It counts the whole thing from beginning to end.

[R_Hythlodeus]

One example is Germany's TIH had certain scenes cut in the Theater. The part of the scene where Abomination's elbow goes into Hulk was cut.That's quite interesting, because usually we get the exact same cut as the Germans (because of the dubbing) and I remember seeing that scene in cinema...

[Vartha]

Odd there's two different running times since that's the case.

[Vartha]

That's quite interesting, because usually we get the exact same cut as the Germans (because of the dubbing) and I remember seeing that scene in cinema...
I know a lady on another board in Germany telling me the violent scenes like that are edited. She had to go out of the country to see the full version.
I find it strange really, here in the states we have a strict sexual ratings and they don't as much. Yet something like that gets cut.


edit: Ironically RH she had to go to Austria to see the full version lol

[R_Hythlodeus]

I know a lady on another board in Germany telling me the violent scenes like that are edited. She had to go out of the country to see the full version.
I find it strange really, here in the states we have a strict sexual ratings and they don't as much. Yet something like that gets cut.
Odd. It definatly wasn't cut in Austria.

Well, if you had to choose between sex or violence, I guess sex is the healthier decision...

[Tony Stark]

This thread should be taken out and shot. Serioulsy nothing pisses me off more than runtime threads. There is no way to determine how good or bad a movie will be by the runtime. You ever see the Postman? That movie was like 3 hours long and it sucked. Ever see Phone Booth? That move was brilliant and it was 81 minutes long.

Cutting a movie is an artform it's not a science. Some movies are edited to create tension and a faster pace. Most action movies are like this. Other movies are cut longer for more dramatic effect and to let the movie breath.

If the movie isn't good, then it's not going to be good wheather or not you add another 15 minutes of footage.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Sorry but as soon as I found out X3's, Spiderman 3's and Iron Man 2's run-times I knew they would feel rushed and not as good as they should have been, especially X3, and thats the just the few examples I can remember, I know I have made the same prediction for plenty of other movies after hearing their run-times, TIH there is another one.

[Figs]

^Sorry but as soon as I found out X3's, Spiderman 3's and Iron Man 2's run-times I knew they would feel rushed and not as good as they should have been, especially X3, and thats the just the few examples I can remember, I know I have made the same prediction for plenty of other movies after hearing their run-times, TIH there is another one.

IM2, TIH and I believe Spiderman all had runtimes over two hours if I remember correctly. Well, TIH's was just under two hours. I think if it's quite a bit over 90 minutes that that's a pretty decent runtime for a film.

[piccolo]

If the running time is 130 minutes, and the movie is 60% asgard, that means we get almost 80 minutes of asgard action. :wow: :awesome:

[Tony Stark]

^Sorry but as soon as I found out X3's, Spiderman 3's and Iron Man 2's run-times I knew they would feel rushed and not as good as they should have been, especially X3, and thats the just the few examples I can remember, I know I have made the same prediction for plenty of other movies after hearing their run-times, TIH there is another one.

Whatever you thought was just an opinion and often times leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.

We talked about Spider-man 3 before, but I don't see how anyone could think a two hour and 20 minute film could feel rushed. Good greif I damn near fell asleep in the middle of that movie, I don't see how anyone could say it was rushed.

[StarkTheProdigy]

My friend's dad saw a early premier of it, he said its 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Take it or leave it, but it's a valuable source for me. 130 minutes.

[Figs]

My friend's dad saw a early premier of it, he said its 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Take it or leave it, but it's a valuable source for me. 130 minutes.

Did he like it?

[Vartha]

My friend's dad saw a early premier of it, he said its 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Take it or leave it, but it's a valuable source for me. 130 minutes.
Not doubting you at all Marvel. Just wondering why there's different times and why.

[Raiden]

130 minutes sounds perfect; not too short and not too long, either. It's way better than Fox's mandatory 90 min running time imposed on those X-Men movies.

[Tony Stark]

Not doubting you at all Marvel. Just wondering why there's different times and why.

Two reasons, first because they are probably still finishing the final cut of the movie, and two because often times films have a different cut internationally than they do in the states. The first Fantastic Four movie was like that.

[BigThor]

Thanks Marvel 001, I hope it stays that same length when it's released in the states :up:.

[Still A ThorFan]

So much for the BBC's MPAA

[StarkTheProdigy]

Yeah. That's all I got out of my friend so far... Those that saw it can't release any info about it for obvious reasons. Yes, the film he saw was 130 minutes, but as a lot of you have mentioned, it may/may not be the final cut. I feel it is, but hopefully it stays the same.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

IM2, TIH and I believe Spiderman all had runtimes over two hours if I remember correctly. Well, TIH's was just under two hours. I think if it's quite a bit over 90 minutes that that's a pretty decent runtime for a film.

IM2 is listed as 119 mins on the UK BD, and yes Spiderman 3 was over 2 hours, but the thing with these movies is we know how much ground they have to cover, as soon as I heard IM2 was shorter than IM1, I knew aspects would be rushed, as it had A LOT more story and characters to cover, I think Thor has more of both than IM1 did to cover so I just personally hope we get more than 114 mins as that just doesnt seem enough.

Whatever you thought was just an opinion and often times leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.

With those 3 movies, its an opinion shared by a lot of people though, one of the main criticisms of all 3 movies was that aspects were rushed and characters didnt get the attention they should have.

We talked about Spider-man 3 before, but I don't see how anyone could think a two hour and 20 minute film could feel rushed. Good greif I damn near fell asleep in the middle of that movie, I don't see how anyone could say it was rushed.

You dont think Venom's storyline was rushed? Or the symbiote for that matter? Hell, even Sandman's story felt rushed to me during that movie, not to mention JJJ got less screentime than he did in any of the previous movies.

[RaZaTrOn]

If the BBFC say 114 minutes then it's 114 minutes.

16 minutes less certainly won't make or break the film 114 minutes is plenty of time.

[paulogonza]

http://www.cineroxy.com.br/sinopse.asp?id_filme=600

here in brazil is 130 minutes.

[paulogonza]

http://www.cineroxy.com.br/sinopse.asp?id_filme=600

here in brazil is 130 minutes

[Tony Stark]

IM2 is listed as 119 mins on the UK BD, and yes Spiderman 3 was over 2 hours, but the thing with these movies is we know how much ground they have to cover, as soon as I heard IM2 was shorter than IM1, I knew aspects would be rushed, as it had A LOT more story and characters to cover, I think Thor has more of both than IM1 did to cover so I just personally hope we get more than 114 mins as that just doesnt seem enough.



With those 3 movies, its an opinion shared by a lot of people though, one of the main criticisms of all 3 movies was that aspects were rushed and characters didnt get the attention they should have.



You dont think Venom's storyline was rushed? Or the symbiote for that matter? Hell, even Sandman's story felt rushed to me during that movie, not to mention JJJ got less screentime than he did in any of the previous movies.



Two hours and 20 min is plenty of time to tell the story they wanted to tell. Perhaps if they'd used some of the screen time Peter spent dancing or crying like a little b****, they could have fit more character development in, or given more scenes to JJ.

[BigThor]

Two hours and 20 min is plenty of time to tell the story they wanted to tell. Perhaps if they'd used some of the screen time Peter spent dancing or crying like a little b****, they could have fit more character development in, or given more scenes to JJ.

This (although I didn't mind the dancing)

[piccolo]

Peter dancing and being a dick was the only good part of that whole damn movie.

[BigThor]

Don't forget the fight scenes, they weren't as good as Spider-Man 2's but they were still pretty awesome (especially New Goblin vs Spider-Man).

[piccolo]

Actually yeah, Spiderman vs Sandman in the subway tunnel was pretty cool. That and the part of him exploring his new costume powers.

Did not enjoy the end fight at all.

[Lord]

http://www.cineroxy.com.br/sinopse.asp?id_filme=600

here in brazil is 130 minutes
I hope that here in Portugal the running time is the same.

[StarkTheProdigy]

Rotten Tomatoes has it running two hours and ten minutes, and they're pretty reliable. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1197233-thor/

[paulogonza]

all theaters in brazil is puting the running time 130 minutes

[Randal Graves]

The theater I go to put up a time of 115 minutes. They're always right.

[StarkTheProdigy]

Well it seems both sides have solid sources so I guess we'll have to wait! Three weeks for the U.S!

[dustbros]

Rotten Tomatoes has it running two hours and ten minutes, and they're pretty reliable. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1197233-thor/
No, they often post the runtime of "test screening" version way before theatrical release and does not even correct "After" release. And it seems 130 min was just like that case. If BBFC says it's 114min then, like the others said, it's 114 mins. besides even "lame" IMDb has corrected 130 to 114 a few days ago.

[Lord]

Wikipedia did that too.

[R_Hythlodeus]

some reviews say 114 mins., some say 130 mins. I'm beginning to believe there are two cuts out there...

[Mrpaul]

Great running time

[Flemm]

some reviews say 114 mins., some say 130 mins. I'm beginning to believe there are two cuts out there...


I think we can infer from the various reviews and such that two different cuts were being shown at some of these early screenings. Possibly Marvel was trying to get a feel for which version would play better.

[kedrell]

Well I hope they went with the longer one if it means giving more time for Thor & Jane's relationship to develop.

[Vartha]

Well the Variety review says 113

[Flemm]

Well I hope they went with the longer one if it means giving more time for Thor & Jane's relationship to develop.

Well, it sounds like they went with the shorter one, judging by that running time popping up in more places now. A few of the reviews do suggest that the Thor/Jane stuff feels a little rushed, though. However, it's hard to say if a longer cut would have necessarily been better. It's probably better to leave people wanting more rather than letting the movie drag.

[Vartha]

Still just shy of 2 hours is fine by me.

[Flemm]

It's fine by me, too, since I don't think a slightly longer running time is innately better than a shorter one. At a certain point, a movie can start to feel too short for the money, but that would be more for a movie hovering around the 90 minute mark.

That said, it wouldn't shock me to see the longer cut released in the US, seeing as quite a few of the early reviews, which are very positive so far overall, do mention that the earth sequences feel a little rushed and, in the case of the Variety review, I think it was, specifically that a scene or two felt like it was left on the cutting room floor.

[kedrell]

Well some have mentioned that the film just rushes along at a brisk pace w/o giving much time to breathe and soak it all in.

[Village_Idiot]

Well some have mentioned that the film just rushes along at a brisk pace w/o giving much time to breathe and soak it all in.

Alot of that could depend on how familiar you are with the comic book and the characters , Fans of Marvel Comics and Thor will probably find it easier to follow then those who are going in cold

[Flemm]

@ Kedrell: Yeah, which can actually be good in a sense. Fast-paced and exciting is better than slow and plodding. Anyway, it looks like the final cut is 114 minutes. I just meant that it wouldn't shock me to see a longer cut in the US release, not that it is likely or that it would necessarily be better.

[kedrell]

I'm not sure I'd put that in the plus column, though. We need general audience types to like it as well. Moreso even since they make up the bulk of the ticket sales.

[Flemm]

I would be more concerned about that if someone had suggested the story is confusing or that the Asgardian stuff is hard to follow or care about. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Oddly enough, it seems to be the earth stuff that feels a tad rushed, at least to some. That could mean that Marvel over-edited this a bit to shorten the film.

Some of what we are hearing on that subject surprises me a little since the earth stuff was so heavily featured leading up to the film. This caused some to even speculate that the studio might have been a bit concerned about the early stuff in Asgard. Apparently not, since that stuff seems to have gone over extremely well and makes up the vast majority of the film.

[kedrell]

Which is why I'm hoping the 130min cut is what we get and most of that extra 16 minutes is fleshing the Earth stuff out. Not holding my breath though.

[Flemm]

Well, you're certainly right not to hold your breath, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely either. If the general consensus from the early press screenings is that everything basically works, but that the earth stuff could stand to be fleshed out a bit, then I could see them responding to that for the US release, assuming they have some good footage that they were on the fence about.

[StarkTheProdigy]

My theatre's page is showing 115 minutes for the movie...but it's 5 minutes away from 2 hours, so I really can't complain. Whether it is 130 minutes or 115 minutes (by the way it looks, it most likely is) let's just be thankful it's not 90-105 minute movie.

[S.A.A.D.]

It's 115 minutes on my end.

[WhiteKnight]

Official running time according to the Australian Board of Film Classification is 111 minutes.

Can confirm this as accurate as I saw the film at the world premiere and timed it myself too.

[S.A.A.D.]

Is it 111 minutes with credits? Or is it 111 minutes without credits?

[WhiteKnight]

Is it 111 minutes with credits? Or is it 111 minutes without credits?

From start to finish. With credits, even counting the post-credits scene.

[marcvader]

And credits usually run about 5 to 8 minutes?

[rashad]

It's 113 min including credits.

[S.A.A.D.]

D'oh. :argh:

[weezerspider]

well atleast we know we're getting an extended version on blu-ray! lol

[Vartha]

lol That's going to be awhile we actually find that out Weezer.

[Doctor Jones]

Man, not 130? Can they really fit all of that into 111 minutes?

[Quasimod0]

they can and did

[Tony Stark]

I think we can infer from the various reviews and such that two different cuts were being shown at some of these early screenings. Possibly Marvel was trying to get a feel for which version would play better.

That's probably the most accurate statement. They can play around with the international releases as a pre-screening. Rotton Tomatoes still has it listed at 2hrs and 10 min, we'll see if it remains that by the official US release or not.

All in all, and I've said this before, it really doesn't matter. If the reviews are good, then it won't matter if it's 114 or 130.

[Flemm]

All in all, and I've said this before, it really doesn't matter. If the reviews are good, then it won't matter if it's 114 or 130.

I agree that it doesn't really matter.

As more early reviews come in, though, it's obvious that some of the reviewers are seeing a version of the film that is longer than two hours (a few have referenced it specifically within the text of the review), while others seemingly refer to a movie that is a bit under two hours. So I would say that the US running time is still a bit up in the air.

[SuperSoldier985]

Good running time is good

[BigThor]

Man, not 130? Can they really fit all of that into 111 minutes?

I thought the same thing, I'm hoping they release the 2hr 10min version in the states, mostly because I like my movies to be a little long.

Plus a fair amount of reviewers are saying some parts of Thor feel "rushed" and I think 14 extra minutes might help that out a bit.

[Doctor Jones]

I agree. I do have a problem with a short running time because you need to properly develop things. Especially for films like this. I think they should be at least two hours. But it depends on the nature of the films. X-Men is around 90 minutes long, but it works fine. But this has got Asgard and Earth scenes with a lot of dynamics to it.

[weezerspider]

Well my former college roommate is the GM at my local theater and he got the list of movies he's getting the next two weeks and Thor's running time says 130 minutes ( I live in the US), BUT he's said they are not always right.

[BigThor]

I agree. I do have a problem with a short running time because you need to properly develop things. Especially for films like this. I think they should be at least two hours. But it depends on the nature of the films. X-Men is around 90 minutes long, but it works fine. But this has got Asgard and Earth scenes with a lot of dynamics to it.

Yep, exactly how I feel Doctor Jones :cool:

Well my former college roommate is the GM at my local theater and he got the list of movies he's getting the next two weeks and Thor's running time says 130 minutes ( I live in the US), BUT he's said they are not always right.

I'm hopeful for this even though it might be wrong, because they could easily use the 2hr 10min version in the US release, I'll bre sure to keep my fingers crossed.

[Doctor Jones]

Somehow I doubt they would be different running times. It's kind of weird. Maybe they cut it down because of lesser theaters so they can have more showings there in Australia?

[weezerspider]

I'm hopeful for this even though it might be wrong, because they could easily use the 2hr 10min version in the US release, I'll bre sure to keep my fingers crossed.

He has said that he's had about an average of 5 wrong running times a year(he's worked there 5 years). That said, Thor is a unique situation though with the two versions floating around to different critics.

[JP060692]

126 and 125 for IM1 and IM2, respectively.

This is a good running time.

Wow IM2 was shorter than IM1 certainly didn't seem like it. Anyways that is the perfect run time.


:facepalm:

[weezerspider]

:facepalm:
lol I was thinking the same thing when I read that.

[Mysteryman]

Its also possible that the longer running times are just wrong.
I wont be convinced there are two cuts until we have sevaral reports of people seing BOTH cuts.

[sauronthegreat]

it's not 130minutes, Thor's running time is around 105min without the credits

[spidey-dude]

hmmmn i think the one i saw was just under 2 hours

[BigThor]

it's not 130minutes, Thor's running time is around 105min without the credits

...sigh

[obin_gam]

it felt really short. 1 h and 55 min with the credits, and i think 10 or 15 more minutes would have made a big difference

[kedrell]

I'm gonna bring in an egg timer just so we can settle this once and for all.

[TheVileOne]

It did feel really short. I felt it could've used a little more in the second and third acts.

It's not as bad as the gutted length hurt TIH though. It could've used a few extra scenes.

So its about 105 minutes without the credits. Sorry guys :( .

[BigThor]

Once again....*sigh*

[shigsy2003]

Yeah the film is definitely not on over 2 hours. When

I saw Loki sending the Destroyer down to Earth

I was like "what? Already? Nooooooooo".

Still the film is mint :D

[Doctor Jones]

Jeez... disapointed. Well, I'll wait and see.

[BigThor]

....sighhhhhh

[LoveDragonDon]

Cool love the long screen time!

[shigsy2003]

Jeez... disapointed. Well, I'll wait and see.

....sighhhhhh

Well think about it this way guys.....the movie doesn't in anyway shape or form drag. That to me, is the most important thing, unlike Iron Man 2 which in parts had me looking at my watch. You will be surprised at how fast the time seems to fly but you will have a royal blast and that is far more important than it being on over 2 hours :)

(Even if, in my opinion, an extra half hour wouldn't have hurt it)

[TheVileOne]

I love when people act like there are MULTIPLE CUTS out there and one is longer. People said the same **** about X-men 3, LOL.

I still remember when SHH reported the FAKE running time from fox.

[Vartha]

There was a different cut for the Incredible Hulk in Germany.

[TheVileOne]

There was a different cut for the Incredible Hulk in Germany.
That had another 45 minutes? ;)

Once again delusional fanboys when a movie they are excited about is coming out will get in their head that a shorter movie is actually longer and they are playing around with different cuts, LOL NO! 130 minutes probably means with all the commercials and trailers.

[Vartha]

Actually Germany had parts cut like the part where Abomination jambs his "elbow" into Hulk's chest.

[TheVileOne]

So basically they censored the German version? OK that's a little different.

It's not like entire sequences are cut or anything.

[Vartha]

well like the U.S. and it censers for nudity, they have for SOME violent content. The lady I know had to go to Austria to see the full version.

[TheVileOne]

OK man seriously that's different than what I am talking about.

When X-men 3 came out people were like MAYBE THEY ARE TAKING AROUND TWO DIFFERENT CUTS AT SCREENINGS ONE WHICH IS LIKE THE LONGER BETTER VERSION!

They were doing the same thing with Thor because they didn't want to believe it was so short.

The fact is it is short and a little rushed like the first X-Men movie. Now let me be clear it's not bad but I just wanted a little more of everything.

[Superhero 101]

Did anyone else feel that they cut a lot of stuff out of the film i mean the movie went by really fast when i was watching it it was like boom boom boom the end. I mean when i was getting tickets to see thor a day before it listed 130 minutes just like the forum did but the next day it was like 114 minutes

[BigThor]

It felt perfectly normal to me, I saw it twice and it didn't seem short either time.

[Vartha]

OK man seriously that's different than what I am talking about.

When X-men 3 came out people were like MAYBE THEY ARE TAKING AROUND TWO DIFFERENT CUTS AT SCREENINGS ONE WHICH IS LIKE THE LONGER BETTER VERSION!

They were doing the same thing with Thor because they didn't want to believe it was so short.

The fact is it is short and a little rushed like the first X-Men movie. Now let me be clear it's not bad but I just wanted a little more of everything.
Actually back when Conan the Barbarian first hit the screen, I was out on the East Coast and a group of us saw Conan in NYC. There was a scene taken out and STILL didn't reappear in the anniversary edition either, where this Serving wench was going to spill boiling soup onto Conan in the Orgy pit and Conan Gut her. The women libbers of the day threw a HUGE fit over it and that part of the scene was cut. The rest of the States never saw it.