The Avengers Avengers run time

[TheVileOne]

Again Lord of The Rings. Jackson and his team conceived, wrote, and yes even shot a lot of ideas that never made it into the extended editions. Some of it was re-written during production. Some things were re-written in post after the fact in the editing room. Some scenes that were meant for different places were re-placed elsewhere. The sequence where Aragorn was fighting and running to save Haldir was written and shot for Aragorn saving ARWEN WHO WAS FIGHTING IN HELM'S DEEP! They actually wrote and shot footage of Arwen warrior elf princess fighting in battle against the orcs in Helm's Deep!

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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

And this once again forces my hand to ignore you.

I was indulging you for a bit but then you start the kids games and that's my signal to bail

You think this film is fine? Of course you do. You seem to have no doubts at all about its quality.

Hell, I bet if the running time was announced as 90 minutes you'd still call me a troll and say "The studio has done a wonderfully amazing encouraging awe-inspiring job of bringing these beloved characters to the big screen..."

Again, I don't work for Marvel nor would I ever.

I'm just a customer.

I want a great film and I'm having a tough time based on my experience with this medium to believe that 135 minutes is enough time to tell this particular story, specially after hearing the director had a much longer initial cut.

I could be wrong, but I could also be right.

 

[Quasimod0]

Also, in the third film, They shot aragorn fighting sauron, but edited it to be him fighting a troll

 

[AndrewGilkison]

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

Did that ever cross your mind?

No, it didn't.

You know why it didn't cross my mind?

Because it is complete ********.

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.

Oh please.

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

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

It would be great if every director could see how every scene he or she plans to film is going to play as a whole movie before he or she even films it so he or she won't have to cut out a frame and they get to keep all the footage in the theatical cut. I am sure that is an ideal fantasy world every movie director wishes they could live in, where scripts and storyboards can do all the work for them in guiding them to where they need to go so they won't have to waste time and money filming a scene they find out they have to delete.

But it very rarely works that way.

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.

How is any of this Film Shoot 101 lecture crap supposed to convince me that directors, even good and great directors don't leave footage on the cutting room floor when they are overseeing the editing of their films?

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

You don't waste time and money.

Big hollywood movies wastes time and money on all sorts of **** while shooting, including filming scenes that they don't wind up using in the final theatical cut.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!!!

Jesus Christ.

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

And how do you know what Whedon cut out wasn't cut out for a good reason? What if all the stuff he cut wasn't needed, or it sucked, or was good but didn't work with the movie as a whole?

Have you seen any of the footage he cut? You know what he cut out? Have you seen the movie yet?

If not, give it a rest on how it's a tragedy that this movie is only 2 hours and 15 minutes, because you haven't seen the goddamn thing yet.

 

[Brad Redfield]

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

Yup, it's true. The initial cut of Fellowship of the Ring was four and a half hours long.

 

[shigsy2003]

I want a great film and I'm having a tough time based on my experience with this medium to believe that 135 minutes is enough time to tell this particular story, specially after hearing the director had a much longer initial cut.

I could be wrong, but I could also be right.

That applies to everyone. But bashing a movie you haven't seen because you personally think it's too short is a little silly.

135 minutes isn't enough to tell this particular story? We have eight already established characters, we just have to get them together and see them hate and then love each other. Then they will fight Loki and the aliens. If anything the 135 minutes suggest Whedon isn't going re-tread old ground and remind us of things already seen in the previous five films, so the GA may be a little lost if they haven't seen the previous films, but that's their loss. We will be getting all new and exciting stuff.

 

[TheVileOne]

Alexei just in another thread you talk about how fantastic Made was. Favreau's directorial debut.

According to Favreau his initial cut of Made was OVER TWO AND A HALF HOURS. His final cut was 95 minutes. That's for a low budget indy movie.

Way for a Alexei to quote only one line from my previous posts when I directly answered ALL OF HIS QUESTIONS he previously asked me. Then I responded to all the other arguments he made with specific examples of why he was saying what he was saying was false.

Alexei is a troll where The Avengers is concerned.

If the movie is bad and feels rushed I will say so.

Could Alexei be right about the runtime? Sure but he's basing all his arguments on false ideas that just aren't true and history proves that.

 

[shigsy2003]

Alexei just in another thread you talk about how fantastic Made was. Favreau's directorial debut.

According to Favreau his initial cut of Made was OVER TWO AND A HALF HOURS. His finale cut was 95 minutes. That's for a low budget indy movie.

Hang on; visionary directors NEVER EVER shoot things they don't use. His favourite films don't have deleted scenes. This has to be false, it would mean Favreau cut 55 minutes....but why when he is a visionary? This makes no sense?

Okay I am done now

 

[cherokeesam]

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Aaaand, here's Dark Raven, right on point with the cheap shot, predictable as always.

That definitely doesn't surprise me.
Cheers.

 

[Dark Raven]

Aaaand, here's Dark Raven, right on point with the cheap shot, predictable as always.

That definitely doesn't surprise me.
Cheers.

Most of your posts are often not based on facts or consist of you having misread/ misquoted something or having gotten the wrong end of the stick. It's becoming a repeated pattern. I took your previous post with a pinch of salt because of that, and sure enough it proved once again to be the case.

It's not a matter of taking cheap shots. It's a hint to get your facts straight and read things correctly before posting, because people aren't going to take what you post seriously.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Christ, you people Haven't. Seen. The. Movie. Yet. We have no idea of the pacing and the reason for the running time. If the movie works, we will know why it works as its running time. We can't sit here and say we know better than the man who cut it himself. Because you know, people here have a better knowledge in how a big blockbuster movie should be cut and paced and handled rather than its own director who actually cut the movie himself, an actual accomplished storyteller. I doubt people here have actually sat in an editing room, looked at all the probable millions of feet of film this film shot (which Whedon did say the first cut was around 3 hours), and start to cut something that should go down to something that feels right. Substantial, but still at a certain pace that's satisfying to what the story is telling. The movie making process is a completely different one in the editing room. It's a totally different formation of the film and different form the script and shooting phase. It's where the movie really comes to take form. But I guess people already know that since they've been in Whedon's position. I guess I just wasted time saying all of this then.

Listen I may gruff at a superhero origin film that's the length of GL, because an origin film works best with at least two hours to it. Or at least something with GL with all those characters and main story. But with this, these people are already established. I'm sure they will get to the action quickly, but there will also be character development in the midst of all of it. Hell, what the hell do I know?

I don't want to see a two and a half hour cut if Whedon thinks it doesn't work the best as the way to tell the best story possible. I'd love to see more footage of course, but for this, Whedon thinks this is the best version. But I guess something so big and epic has to be three hours. Why must epic become synonymous with the longer the run time? Transformers 3 was epic, and it ran too damn long. And that's in the same vein as this film: A disaster film. It could have shaved, hmm, about 20 to 25 minutes off, which so happens to be this film's running time. Viola! Hopefully I may not be fatigued by the finale like I was with TF3 because thhis seems to have an actual conscience thought of where it's going.

 

[HUMANIMAL]

avengers run time?...on blueray as long as i live and more

 

[cherokeesam]

Most of your posts are often not based on facts or consist of you having misread/ misquoted something or having gotten the wrong end of the stick. It's becoming a repeated pattern. I took your previous post with a pinch of salt because of that, and sure enough it proved once again to be the case.

It's not a matter of taking cheap shots. It's a hint to get your facts straight and read things correctly before posting, because people aren't going to take what you post seriously.

Thanks for the advice, bucky.
FYI, I read *tons* of info and scour the goddamn internet like a newshound, and *always* look at *all* sides of any new information before coming to an informed decision. What I post may not always be accurate, may not always be right, but by god, it sure as hell has been thoroughly researched by me through multiple websites. And I almost always provide links and quotes to back up my opinions and observations, except when I'm pressed for time to get off the damn computer.

Dude, I know that the opinions and speculations that I post *rarely* (if ever) agree with your particular position on anything, but don't ever, *ever* mistake that for being uninformed or not having thoroughly researched my position.

That's all I'm going to say about that. If you can't discuss and argue in a civil, grown-up manner, and can only resort to namecalling and insults to get your point across, I'll gladly put you on my very vacant "ignore" list, because I don't consider ad hominem and contrarianism to be valid points of debate, and consider the posts and opinions of people who stoop to that to be utterly worthless to read.

 

[(SUPERMAN)]

My local Cinema, here in the UK just put up a run time of 142 Minutes.


So say 7 minutes end credits puts the movie dead on 135 Minutes Just about right I'd say.

 

[The Watcher]

RIM on the run time:

Antonio Stark ‏ @RIMRises @RichieRider Never asked for more awesomeness! Everything is long & sweet!

 

[Shadowlord X]

And this once again forces my hand to ignore you.

I was indulging you for a bit but then you start the kids games and that's my signal to bail

You think this film is fine? Of course you do. You seem to have no doubts at all about its quality.

Hell, I bet if the running time was announced as 90 minutes you'd still call me a troll and say "The studio has done a wonderfully amazing encouraging awe-inspiring job of bringing these beloved characters to the big screen..."

Again, I don't work for Marvel nor would I ever.

I'm just a customer.

I want a great film and I'm having a tough time based on my experience with this medium to believe that 135 minutes is enough time to tell this particular story, specially after hearing the director had a much longer initial cut.

I could be wrong, but I could also be right.

You're doing a really poor job of ignoring him. LOL.

 

[Shadowlord X]

RIM on the run time:

Antonio Stark ‏ @RIMRises @RichieRider Never asked for more awesomeness! Everything is long & sweet!

Fantastic!!!!!!!

 

[L0ngsh0t]

135 sounds good to me. 125 would also have been fine

 

[Shadowlord X]

Thanks for the advice, bucky.
FYI, I read *tons* of info and scour the goddamn internet like a newshound, and *always* look at *all* sides of any new information before coming to an informed decision. What I post may not always be accurate, may not always be right, but by god, it sure as hell has been thoroughly researched by me through multiple websites. And I almost always provide links and quotes to back up my opinions and observations, except when I'm pressed for time to get off the damn computer.

Dude, I know that the opinions and speculations that I post *rarely* (if ever) agree with your particular position on anything, but don't ever, *ever* mistake that for being uninformed or not having thoroughly researched my position.

That's all I'm going to say about that. If you can't discuss and argue in a civil, grown-up manner, and can only resort to namecalling and insults to get your point across, I'll gladly put you on my very vacant "ignore" list, because I don't consider ad hominem and contrarianism to be valid points of debate, and consider the posts and opinions of people who stoop to that to be utterly worthless to read.

With all due respect dude, I didn't see where Dark Raven did any of this.

 

[mclay18]

I'm glad the advance screening is in another week or two, and then we can put all this sniping about who's wrong and who's right about the running time.

Anyway, Joss said a few weeks back that his cut was around 2 hours and 25 minutes, so the rumored 135 minute running time does have some weight.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

This movie needs to be at least 2 hours and 20 mins long. I mean they have been hyping this up since Iron Man 1 in 2008. It's the first epic super hero team up movie so the run time needs to reflect that lol.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I'm glad the advance screening is in another week or two, and then we can put all this sniping about who's wrong and who's right about the running time.

Anyway, Joss said a few weeks back that his cut was around 2 hours and 25 minutes, so the rumored 135 minute running time does have some weight.

I hope this is true. That runtime is perfect.

 

[paulogonza]

here is the link with the theater in my city from Brazil, with the running time 142 minutes , 2 : 22 hours, its official, i buy my tickets for midnght show april 27th

http://www.cineroxy.com.br/sinopse.asp?id_filme=822

 

[Green Day]

Could be a guess for runtime. At another movie forum someone said in order to buy tickets in advanced credit cards will not work unless a run time is entered in.

 

[Smashlilman]

I almost hope they never show that 45 minutes Joss is cutting. I liked Incredible Hulk well enough until I saw what they cut out. It actually hurts to watch a few of those shorter scenes now knowing how much deeper, better and more complex the movie could and should have been.

It literally bothers me when watching Incredible Hulk. "IF ONLY THEY HAD..." I don't want that to happen with Avengers.

Nope they just need to wait a year and a half and release a new first wave of Blu-ray movies then release a new Bluray with extra scenes. That way the make an butt load of money off the first wave then make more money off the second wave of people rebuying the same movie just for the 45 mins of blu-ray extras.