Avengers run time

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Eh, retracted. I misread something during SXSW or something...sorry.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

[L0ngsh0t]

2:15 is a long time.

I would probably play it safe and say that a movie this size should be closer to 2:30....but 2:15 is not like a walk in the park either...that's a night at the movies.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by L0ngsh0t

2:15 is a long time.

No, it isn't.

For an origin story like Cap & Thor, yes.

For a global invasion movie with 7 leads, its miles short.

I say the above statement with extreme prejudice now that I know Whedon's original cut was 3 hours.

Leterrier and Norton's cut was about 171 minutes and look what they did to that.

[TheVileOne]

The extended cut of Return of The King was about about 4 hours fifteen minutes long. I don't think the 3 hour 10 minute cut killed the movie.

Saying the movie has seven leads is a gross overstatement.

[AndrewGilkison]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

No, it isn't.

For an origin story like Cap & Thor, yes.

For a global invasion movie with 7 leads, its miles short.

I say the above statement with extreme prejudice now that I know Whedon's original cut was 3 hours.

Leterrier and Norton's cut was about 171 minutes and look what they did to that.

Of course, you say this without knowing what Whedon cut out and how vital that footage was to the story and how those scenes worked with the whole movie in context.

Sigh.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

The extended cut of Return of The King was about about 4 hours fifteen minutes long. I don't think the 3 hour 10 minute cut killed the movie.

Saying the movie has seven leads is a gross overstatement.

Are you really gonna tell me that 135 minutes is the same as 190? Really?

Its not, man.

I know you like this studio, I know you're trying your best to show them your support, but the cards are on the table and this may be another case of Feige's post-production madness.

135 is not the same as 180. Specially for this kind of film.

Hell, I woulda been okay with 145-150 sans credits.

But 135 with credits? No. Specially if its coming from an original 180-minute cut.

Here's a question: Why is it that you are incapable of slamming the studio for not being open to longer running times? You do realize that most films with longer running times have made more money than all 5 MCU pictures, right?

More screenings per day/lower running times is a stupid business tactic on the part of Kevin Feige.

You must see that, even if you choose not to agree with it.

[Webfoot Hero]

How do you know what he cut though? A lot of times the rough cut includes multiple scenes that have the same information but the director ultimately decides which scene fits better in the whole tone of the movie. Also, some scenes can really slow down pacing and not really going to harm the movie's plot once so ever if removed. I'd say until we see the movie and then possible deleted scenes on the Blu-ray/DVD, we'll never know if Whedon's decision to cut the movie down was the right call.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

Of course, you say this without knowing what Whedon cut out and how vital that footage was to the story and how those scenes worked with the whole movie in context.

Sigh.

You don't shoot coverage just to throw it away. 'nuff said.

Everything you shoot is storyboarded. Each storyboard is an important shot you need to tell your story. As you go along, you mark off the boards you've shot. That's the production process.

You don't shoot things to later on not use them. That would be wasting money.

This isn't The Tree of Life where Malick wasn't on a schedule and could just shoot 6 hours of HD for the hell of it.

Whedon had a screenplay and plates.

[TheVileOne]

My answer to your question unlike certain fans I'm not fixated on longer runtimes making a movie better. If hardcore fanboys had their way this movie would be five hours long.

Just as an example: Spider-Man 3 is 2 hours and 20 minutes and the longest of Raimi's Spider-Man films. Previously the Spider-man films were about just over 2 hours. This was the longest one and that didn't make for a better movie. Also I prefer the shorter theatrical cut of Army of Darkness also by Raimi as opposed to the longer bootleg cut.

I care more about is the movie good, does it tell a good story. My main thing is that I wanted the movie to be well over 2 hours and it is at that. If this movie was being turned into X-Men 3 the big third act and ended up being a damned 95 minutes long, then I think there is a valid point here.

Unless you've actually seen both cuts and can unequivocally prove to me that the 135 minute version is trash, then I'm not buying into the hate.

Also going by what was cut from both Cap and Thor, it was nothing mind-blowing. None of it really added anything to either film other than padding the length. The only sequence I really think should've remained in Incredible Hulk is the ice sequence where he tries to kill himself. I didn't think anything else would've really put the movie over the top and made it exceptional. I think Leterrier is not that good of a director and his work on these big budget tentpoles proves that to me. I think Norton was an iffy choice as Banner from the beginning.

Regarding runtime with box office, I know ultimately it doesn't matter. I want the longest movie possible.

Just for other examples, the Transformers sequels. Each one is longer than the last. They add more characters and I hate how long they are. Each one becomes more mind-numbing and stupid and ridiculous than the previous one. Shorter runtimes for those movies could've meant less stupid Sam and his family scenes. Less of Sam's mom running around high on college campus and knocking people over. Get rid of freaking Mudflap and Skidz. It could've really helped those movies making shorter cuts and made them more watchable. The best and most watchable one remains the first one and I don't think just making more is always going to make it better.

I interviewed Gore Verbinski once and he talked about how problematic the last Pirates of The Carribbean became and how over-complicated it was because there were so many characters and even the sub-characters had subplots. There you had a big three hour movie and I don't think the franchise or movie just in terms of quality and satisfaction was served by all that went in it.

Since this is reportedly the longest film they've made so far, I don't really see the problem. All these characters and where they are is established. We don't need to spend 45 to 60 minutes getting Iron Man into his red and gold suit armor or Captain America getting muscles and his vibranium shield. All the basic set up work has been done over the course of about six hours already.

Also one other thing. The Spider-Man 2.1 cut. This cut of the movie is 135 minutes compared to the 128 minutes for the theatrical cut. I like both cuts of the films but against the theatrical version I prefer that one more. There's a couple bits I like in 2.1 but I find the theatrical cut is the tighter, better film. I don't think the extra scenes really enhance the movie. There is a whole extra scene with Mary Jane and her friend played by Vanessa Ferlito that only really drives home things we already get from the theatrical version. Jameson prancing in Spider-Man's costume is funny and cute but it's not detrimental. I like the extra fight footage for the Doc Ock fights and that's about it. Another example, there is a scene extension where we see Spider-Man jump into the car and start driving it and he TAKES OFF HIS MASK WHILE DRIVING THE CAR STILL IN HIS SPIDER-MAN COSTUME! That should not be in the movie and I hate that it's there.

[AndrewGilkison]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

You don't shoot coverage just to throw it away. 'nuff said.

Everything you shoot is storyboarded. Each storyboard is an important shot you need to tell your story. As you go along, you mark off the boards you've shot. That's the production process.

You don't shoot things to later on not use them. That would be wasting money.
This isn't The Tree of Life where Malick wasn't on a schedule and could just shoot 6 hours of HD for the hell of it.

Whedon had a screenplay and plates.

And yet it happens all the time.

Practically every movie has deleted scenes, or stuff and moments and lines that got cut out of scenes. Why would The Avengers be any different?

Whedon isn't going to leave a scene in if it's not needed in the final cut. It doesn't matter how much time he spent shooting it or how much money he spent on the shot, or how many hours was spent storyboarding it. If he doesn't think it works in the final cut of the movie, out it goes. Period.

I mean, do you think they shoot those deleted scenes that are on DVDs just for the DVDs? Of course not. They were shot because they were originally intended to be in the movie, and they get cut for many different reasons. It happens all the goddamn time. It's part of the process and always has been, since the beginning of cinema. It's not a new concept.

So what else you got?

[TheVileOne]

Movies are constantly re-written during principal production and even in post-production in the editing room. There is tons of footage that was shot for Lord of The Rings that never even made it to the extended cuts. For example: Arwen in Helm's Deep. Elrond in Lothlorien. Orcs chasing the Fellowship.

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

You don't shoot coverage just to throw it away. 'nuff said.

That's correct, however directors can have a tendency to shoot things they personally like and when seen within the context of the whole film they find it doesn't work.

Reading a script for a three hour movie and watching the film based off of that script are two entirely separate things. It may have been good in a script but when viewed Whedon may have found the scenes redundant or pace slowing.

Also, The Avengers has had FIVE films building up to it, that's almost 10 hours of character establishing....we know the characters, we need little exposition on them now. This film is just going to show how they interact with one another. Why does that need 3 hours?

[TheVileOne]

Because it's a global invasion movie with seven leads.

For one thing, do we know it's even a GLOBAL invasion movie yet?

I don't think we've seen evidence yet that Loki's forces have invaded or started taking over the rest of the world. Or if we do it will probably be a small aside. While the movie jumps around some countries, it looks like the main invasion force is focused on New York.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by AndrewGilkison

And yet it happens all the time.

Practically every movie has deleted scenes, or stuff and moments and lines that got cut out of scenes. Why would The Avengers be any different?

Whedon isn't going to leave a scene in if it's not needed in the final cut. It doesn't matter how much time he spent shooting it or how much money he spent on the shot, or how many hours was spent storyboarding it. If he doesn't think it works in the final cut of the movie, out it goes. Period.

I mean, do you think they shoot those deleted scenes that are on DVDs just for the DVDs? Of course not. They were shot because they were originally intended to be in the movie, and they get cut for many different reasons. It happens all the goddamn time. It's part of the process and always has been, since the beginning of cinema. It's not a new concept.

So what else you got?

You do realize that most great films don't have deleted scenes?

Did that ever cross your mind?

That last paragraph goes to show that you watch wayyyyy too many Hollywood popcorn flicks & have basically become accustomed to the studio obsession with shortening the length of films in an effort to fit in more screenings per day.

Most fully realized visions have little to nothing to be thrown away.

If you don't want it, it shouldn't be shot.

The creative process begins with a concept that usually lands on a short outline. Maybe 10 pages long at best. From there you craft a screenplay. That screenplay gets polished at least 3 to 4 times before you actually decide to shoot it. When you do go into pre-pro you go over that script one more time just to make sure there's nothing in there you don't want because now is the time to remove it (and save some extra cash). Then you shoot your film, could be 50 days, could be 30, but in the end you make sure to capture every scene on that screenplay so your story won't feel incomplete. Every scene has dozens of storyboards to capture specific beats and moments. Again, you check those off as you go along.

You don't shoot deleted scenes so they can later be deleted scenes.

You don't waste time and money.

Most final cuts are only 10-15 minutes shorter than initial cuts. Not 45 minutes shorter. That's a heavy chunk of coverage.

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Because it's a global invasion movie with seven leads.

For one thing, do we know it's even a GLOBAL invasion movie yet?

I don't think we've seen evidence yet that Loki's forces have invaded or started taking over the rest of the world. Or if we do it will probably be a small aside. While the movie jumps around some countries, it looks like the main invasion force is focused on New York.

Exactly, Loki will start in New York and get beaten in New York, it's almost a guarantee The Avengers will prevent him from getting any further.

Also (I know you're being sarcastic) but 7 leads? Lol, four leads and three supporting. Coulson and Hill will have a chance to shine at some point but that's it. The big four have had solo films so we know them, we know Widow and we know Coulson and Fury. So it's just Hill and Hawkeye (his part in Thor didn't establish enough) to get acquainted with. Once that's done, it's fight time.

[L0ngsh0t]

We're focusing on the science of making a movie. Now I'm not one to get all artistic and what not but there is a method too it. Too long is a problem for movies, especially ones like the Avengers where, while the characters I'm sure will be compelling.....it's not like this grand/layered story that has to be told a certain way.

there is a pacing and a cadence too it. I would say 2.5 hours would easily be long enough anything more is butt numbing. I would also caution going shorter than 215...But Joss Whedon, Kevin Fiege, Stan Lee....they aren't trying to change the world here...there isn't this emotional scope too the Avengers that needs 3 hours to develop.

[TheVileOne]

Well he doesn't START per se in New York. We know he's in Germany and he's in where ever the Cube is being researched. But the main invasion it looks like and I think it will start and end in New York. Could be wrong though.

[DJ Kornphlake]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

You do realize that most great films don't have deleted scenes?

Did that ever cross your mind?

lol wut

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

You do realize that most great films don't have deleted scenes?

Did that ever cross your mind?

That last paragraph goes to show that you watch wayyyyy too many Hollywood popcorn flicks & have basically become accustomed to the studio obsession with shortening the length of films in an effort to fit in more screenings per day.

Most fully realized visions have little to nothing to be thrown away.

If you don't want it, it shouldn't be shot.

The creative process begins with a concept that usually lands on a short outline. Maybe 10 pages long at best. From there you craft a screenplay. That screenplay gets polished at least 3 to 4 times before you actually decide to shoot it. When you do go into pre-pro you go over that script one more time just to make sure there's nothing in there you don't want because now is the time to remove it (and save some extra cash). Then you shoot your film, could be 50 days, could be 30, but in the end you make sure to capture every scene on that screenplay so your story won't feel incomplete. Every scene has dozens of storyboards to capture specific beats and moments. Again, you check those off as you go along.

You don't shoot deleted scenes so they can later be deleted scenes.

You don't waste time and money.

Most final cuts are only 10-15 minutes shorter than initial cuts. Not 45 minutes shorter. That's a heavy chunk of coverage.

If you need 3 hours for this sort of film then you are an incompetent screenwriter and director.

Stuff is shot with the intention of it being used...but if it fails to progress the story within the context of the film then it has to be cut.

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Well he doesn't START per se in New York. We know he's in Germany and he's in where ever the Cube is being researched. But the main invasion it looks like and I think it will start and end in New York. Could be wrong though.

Sorry that's what I meant. The invasion will end and start in New York. Far from global.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by shigsy2003

Exactly, Loki will start in New York and get beaten in New York, it's almost a guarantee The Avengers will prevent him from getting any further.

7 leads? Lol, four leads and three supporting. Coulson and Hill will have a chance to shine at some point but that's it. The big four have had solo films so we know them, we know Widow and we know Coulson and Fury. So it's just Hill and Hawkeye (his part in Thor didn't establish enough) to get acquainted with. Once that's done, it's fight time.

In other words, there's no need for any characterization, exposition or further exploration of the crisis or the individual characters' journeys.

"Its popcorn time! Let's fight, win and go home."

Originally Posted by shigsy2003

If you need 3 hours for this sort of film then you are an incompetent screenwriter and director.

So Whedon's incompetent for conceiving a 3 hour movie? Right.

I guess Coppola's an absolute moron for making Godfather II a 200 minute film considering that all the characters were already established in the film prior. As was Peter Jackson for his 3 hour sequels & Nolan for his 150 minute sequel.

Originally Posted by shigsy2003

Stuff is shot with the intention of it being used...but if it fails to progress the story within the context of the film then it has to be cut.

Maybe you lose a few insert shots or some excessive dialogue here and there. But not 45 minutes worth.

45 minutes worth is TIH all over again.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

You do realize that most great films don't have deleted scenes?

Where did you pull this rabbit out of?

Did that ever cross your mind?

That last paragraph goes to show that you watch wayyyyy too many Hollywood popcorn flicks & have basically become accustomed to the studio obsession with shortening the length of films in an effort to fit in more screenings per day.

Most fully realized visions have little to nothing to be thrown away.

Have you ever read about all the deleted scenes from Raiders of The Lost Ark? They exist.

Have you seen the Gladiator DVD? A movie that won best picture? Ridley Scott cut out a boat load of footage.

If you don't want it, it shouldn't be shot.

That's rarely how it ever works. Considering these movies get focus grouped and picked apart by crowds later on all over the country.

The creative process begins with a concept that usually lands on a short outline. Maybe 10 pages long at best. From there you craft a screenplay. That screenplay gets polished at least 3 to 4 times before you actually decide to shoot it. When you do go into pre-pro you go over that script one more time just to make sure there's nothing in there you don't want because now is the time to remove it (and save some extra cash). Then you shoot your film, could be 50 days, could be 30, but in the end you make sure to capture every scene on that screenplay so your story won't feel incomplete. Every scene has dozens of storyboards to capture specific beats and moments. Again, you check those off as you go along.

This is wrong and ill-informed. Movies and scenes sometimes have to be constantly re-written during production. Circumstances and events cause for changes in the budget or changes in ideas and sequences.

Just for example, the scene where Indiana Jones is supposed to fight an Arab Swordsman. This was originally written and composed as a longer fight. Some of the extra fight footage was even shot. Then Harrison Ford came up with the idea to re-write it on the fly as Indy just shoots the guy with his gun and it inevitably became a classic cinematic moment. This beat however was NEVER in the script.

Another example. The Lord of The Rings, a ton of of alternate footage was written and shot that never made it even into the extended editions. The DVD's talk about this at length. As well as how a lot of things were touched up and re-written during the movie and even in the editing room.

A lot was left on the cutting room floor for Lord of The Rings. A LOT.

You don't shoot deleted scenes so they can later be deleted scenes.

Nothing is shot that way but sometimes it happens regardless where things just don't work in the final film.

Most final cuts are only 10-15 minutes shorter than initial cuts. Not 45 minutes shorter. That's a heavy chunk of coverage.

Most movies aren't like The Avengers.

[TheVileOne]

Alexei is basically trolling again with his fabricated ideas of most fully realized great movies don't have any deleted scenes.

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

In other words, there's no need for any characterization, exposition or further exploration of the crisis or the individual characters' journeys.

"Its popcorn time! Let's fight, win and go home."

Oh dear. Yes let's have a deep film into ALL FOUR main characters individual journeys in a film that is about a TEAM. How about instead we save their individual stories for say, their solo sequels? Makes sense huh?

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

So Whedon's incompetent for conceiving a 3 hour movie? Right.

I guess Coppola's an absolute moron for making Godfather II a 200 minute film considering that all the characters were already established in the film prior. As was Peter Jackson for his 3 hour sequels & Nolan for his 150 minute sequel.

No he's not, since he has edited it down. Again stuff that is written might not be so great when shot and edited. Godfather Part 2 was in my opinion too long, but that film is trying to tell the story of a young Don and a current Michael so it almost works. The Dark Knight could have been a lot shorter and would have been better for it. Jackson had a lot more to do than the Avengers has to. He cut loads from the book which made the films far superior, the FOTR EE and TTT EE are better than the theatrical cuts, however he lost the plot with ROTK EE, almost every scene put back was pointless.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Maybe you lose a few insert shots or some excessive dialogue here and there. But not 45 minutes worth.

45 minutes worth is TIH all over again.

You can't comment on that until you have seen the film and the deleted scenes.

[shigsy2003]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Alexei is basically trolling again with his fabricated ideas of most fully realized great movies don't have any deleted scenes.

I found that highly amusing actually. What a character