The Avengers Avengers run time

[kedrell]

The movie should be as long as it needs to be and no longer. Throwing out arbitrary run time numbers as a measure of how good it'll be is just foolish, IMO.

 

[Quasimod0]

If many of us had it our way, itd be 5 hours long with a team of 10 avengers.

 

[Dark Raven]

I love your example of True Lies. The chase scene on the highway and then the rescue of Arnold's daughter made that movie truly memorable. If there's one James Cameron movie that I can watch over and over, it's definitely True Lies.

Same here. I always tune into it and catch the end whenever it's on TV, even though I do own the film on DVD already.

 

[kedrell]

TL is tied with Terminator 1 as my favorite Cameron movie. Primarily because it's the one film where he gave his usual bull***t preachiness a rest.

 

[The Morningstar]

His usual ******** preachiness? The only films that have that are Abyss and Avatar.

You saying Aliens and T2 have ******** preachiness? A movie that has stuff to think about isn't necessarily preachy. It isn't all black and white.

 

[kedrell]

Aliens is pretty damn preachy with it's "Capitalism Is EVIL!!" undertone. I mean Burke couldn't be more of a pure caricature if they tried.

T2 gets it a tad with Sarah Conner and her crusade against cyberdyne.

 

[TheVileOne]

Don't forget nuclear war .

 

[The Morningstar]

Aliens is pretty damn preachy with it's "Capitalism Is EVIL!!" undertone. I mean Burke couldn't be more of a pure caricature if they tried.

T2 gets it a tad with Sarah Conner and her crusade against cyberdyne.

Again, how is that preachy? It's just elements to the story. It doesn't take away from them being mainly action/suspense driven.

I mean what, should Aliens just be about a group of soldiers fighting aliens? No, that would be incredibly boring and shallow. The idea of Burke wanting to get Ripley and Newt "pregnant" with aliens so he can get them back for the company is just a story element that adds tension and depth to the characters. You don't even need to take it as a dig against capitalism. And how is it a cliche or caricature if it was pretty much the first movie franchise to have that mysterious "company" conspiracy? You're getting it mixed up, others copied Alien and Aliens, not the other way round.

And your criticism of Sarah Conner's crusade against cyberdyne is just as strange. How is it preachy? That is the main ****ing story. Stopping cyberdyne in the present so the future war doesn't happen. It's about fighting against predestination, not accepting that your fate is set in stone and you can't change it.

God forbid we have films that have layers and make us think.

 

[metaphysician]

Again, how is that preachy? It's just elements to the story. It doesn't take away from them being mainly action/suspense driven.

I mean what, should Aliens just be about a group of soldiers fighting aliens? No, that would be incredibly boring and shallow. The idea of Burke wanting to get Ripley and Newt "pregnant" with aliens so he can get them back for the company is just a story element that adds tension and depth to the characters. You don't even need to take it as a dig against capitalism. And how is it a cliche or caricature if it was pretty much the first movie franchise to have that mysterious "company" conspiracy? You're getting it mixed up, others copied Alien and Aliens, not the other way round.

And your criticism of Sarah Conner's crusade against cyberdyne is just as strange. How is it preachy? That is the main ****ing story. Stopping cyberdyne in the present so the future war doesn't happen. It's about fighting against predestination, not accepting that your fate is set in stone and you can't change it.

God forbid we have films that have layers and make us think.

Also, Terminator 2 didn't particularly portray Cyberdyne as evil, or even foolish. They just had the misfortune of being the guys who will eventually create Skynet.

 

[kedrell]

Also, Terminator 2 didn't particularly portray Cyberdyne as evil, or even foolish. They just had the misfortune of being the guys who will eventually create Skynet.

Well they also covered it up from the first movie that the terminator existed so they could study the technology.

In T2 it was much subtler than in Aliens. Most of the film didn't dwell on the evil corporation all that much. But it was hardly in the first film at all.

 

[kedrell]

Again, how is that preachy? It's just elements to the story. It doesn't take away from them being mainly action/suspense driven.

It's just pretty damn obvious. Especially the smug self righteous speech from Ripley to Burke about not knowing which species was worse. I wanted an alien to eat the**** out of her at that point.

I mean what, should Aliens just be about a group of soldiers fighting aliens? No, that would be incredibly boring and shallow. The idea of Burke wanting to get Ripley and Newt "pregnant" with aliens so he can get them back for the company is just a story element that adds tension and depth to the characters. You don't even need to take it as a dig against capitalism. And how is it a cliché or caricature if it was pretty much the first movie franchise to have that mysterious "company" conspiracy? You're getting it mixed up, others copied Alien and Aliens, not the other way round.

And your criticism of Sarah Conner's crusade against cyberdyne is just as strange. How is it preachy? That is the main ****ing story. Stopping cyberdyne in the present so the future war doesn't happen. It's about fighting against predestination, not accepting that your fate is set in stone and you can't change it.

God forbid we have films that have layers and make us think.

Well in T2 I will say that at least that subplot didn't derail the movie. It was worse in Aliens. And yes I know Alien had that theme in there as well. Perhaps that's why I find it popping up again in Aliens to be overkill. Been there, done that. But even so, I guess it could have worked had he been a tad subtler about it. I'm not against layers and subtext in films but I am against unsophisticated, obvious attempts to convey them. If I the viewer can easily see your point coming a mile away(as I could in Aliens) then the writing isn't all that hot or clever. I dunno, I just really appreciate subtlety in films and the lack of it definitely comes off as preachiness to me.

 

[The Morningstar]

Sorry, you're talking out of your arse. You're just picking for no reason.

Alien did it so Aliens couldn't do it? They're in the same universe continuing the same story. What, should the whole mysterious company angle just be dropped? Or should they show a sense of continuity?

You'll excuse SHIELDs blatant involvement in all the Marvel movies though right? You think they are subtle? lol do me a favour. You can watch both Alien movies without acknowledging the "company" angle. It doesn't exist if you don't want it to. You can't do that with SHIELD and the Marvel films can you?

And how was Ripley's "speech" smug and self righteous? The guy just wanted to impregnate her with an alien that eats it's way out of her chest? How would you react?

 

[kedrell]

Sorry, you're talking out of your arse. You're just picking for no reason.

Alien did it so Aliens couldn't do it? They're in the same universe continuing the same story. What, should the whole mysterious company angle just be dropped? Or should they show a sense of continuity?

They wouldn't have to drop it entirely but it does get repetitive. How about a new threat or conflict instead? What Aliens ended up being was more of the same from Alien. The only significant difference was that the action/sfx/tension/etc. was turned up a bunch of notches. But on a basic level, they're not much different from each other. And at least Scott managed to be more subtle about it in his film. There was no ridiculous Burke character there. His inclusion is what makes me find Aliens to be much more ham-fisted in it's attempt to bludgeon the audience with it's message. This is probably the main reason that(while I'm not a fan of the franchise much at all) I consider Alien to be the superior film.

You'll excuse SHIELDs blatant involvement in all the Marvel movies though right? You think they are subtle? lol do me a favor. You can watch both Alien movies without acknowledging the "company" angle. It doesn't exist if you don't want it to. You can't do that with SHIELD and the Marvel films can you?

Shield is there for story function only. They're a main part of the glue that connects the MCU together. There existence in the film universe isn't there to state any sort of socio-political message on the part of the film makers(as far as I know).

I only minded the company angle in the Alien films because it was a pretty obvious(in Aliens, anyway) statement on the part of the film makers. And check Cameron's filmography. That theme(the rich, big business and sometimes the military = evil) comes up A LOT in most of his films. Seems to me like he's trying to hammer his point home.

And how was Ripley's "speech" smug and self righteous? The guy just wanted to impregnate her with an alien that eats it's way out of her chest? How would you react?

I'd have just killed him, probably. I don't think I'd have put down my own entire species though. I guarantee that even when talking about Burke, if it came down to having to let him live or let one of those Aliens live you'd choose Burke in a heartbeat because he can still be reasoned with or at least contained without being much of a threat.

And no, I leave the talking out of one's ass to Ace Ventura.

 

[Optimus27932]

I think that 2 hrs and change is pretty good.

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm at least satisfied that it's more than 2 hours; under that would have been Green Lantern/ Ghost Rider levels of bad.

It's all about the pacing, moreso than the runtime. As long as the pacing is there, then Joss can make 2:15 still feel a Star Wars level of epic. But if it feels rushed, and they cram backstory and exposition into a couple of lines, then the GA who haven't seen all (or any) of the prequels will be totally lost from the get-go; and if they fast-forward through the action sequences, like so many superhero movies do nowadays, then there won't be any epic feel to this at all.

 

[Chewy]

then Joss can make 2:15 still feel a Star Wars level of epic.

2:15 is longer than all of the OT Star Wars movies

 

[cherokeesam]

2:15 is longer than all of the OT Star Wars movies

Yes. Yes, I know that. Hence the reason I wrote "As long as he gets the pacing right...." Like OT Star Wars did.

 

[TacomaTruck90]

Not happy with 135 minutes if it is indeed true. Not happy at all.

The movie should be no less than 145 minutes. From what I'm gathering, Whedon shot for something even longer than that but they seem to be giving him a hard time in the editing room.

Hopefully this doesn't amount to another Feige/TIH situation.

145 sounds good to me...i agree...i feel like a movie of this portion should be atleast 2 and half hours theres so much to cover..but what it is im sure it will be good..is it about 30 days?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

None of us have seen the footage that has been cut out, or the movie in it's complete context yet. So how can anyone of us say Whedon cut too much or made a bad call with the editing without seeing the movie yet?

It's stupid to say things like "this movie shouldn't be anything less than 2 hours and 30 minutes". We don't like it when a studio forces directors to gut a movie to reach a 90 minute running time just to get more showings a day, so what makes this mindset any better? You are still looking at the number but not the context of the footage and how it really plays as a whole. Only the guy who directed the movie and the editor can make that decision, because they know what they're working with. We don't.

This isn't the Lord of the Rings trilogy we're talking about here. They are not taking all the Avengers comics and adapting all of them into one film. There is no reason why it has to be over 2 hours if the footage doesn't warrent staying in the final cut.

And when did ID4 become an example of great movie making? That movie could've used some trimming too (and I damn sure hope Avengers is leagues better than that movie).

 

[Shadowlord X]

Aah, I remember when ID4 came out. People went in expecting high grade sci-fi drama, and got a popcorn movie. I had a friend who was sooo p!$$3d...it was hilarious.

It was a very entertaining popcorn movie though.

 

[cherokeesam]

It's stupid to say things like "this movie shouldn't be anything less than 2 hours and 30 minutes". We don't like it when a studio forces directors to gut a movie to reach a 90 minute running time just to get more showings a day, so what makes this mindset any better? You are still looking at the number but not the context of the footage and how it really plays as a whole. Only the guy who directed the movie and the editor can make that decision, because they know what they're working with. We don't.

EDIT: never mind.
Quasi-Delete Post

 

[Pond]

Actually, in this case, it's the producers who made that decision. Whedon, during an interview, was *informed* of the 2:15 runtime, chosen by Feige, and Whedon said that it's cool and it works, and that he doesn't believe anything vital was left on the cutting room floor.

What are you talking about? Where? Source? It was Whedon who told us that HE cut the movie; in fact, he went to make Much ado about nothing so thast he could distance himself from the movie and cut it right. Thats his vrsion. HE even said he ALWAYS wanted it to be between 2 housr and two hours and half...

 

[Shadowlord X]

Actually, in this case, it's the producers who made that decision. Whedon, during an interview, was *informed* of the 2:15 runtime, chosen by Feige, and Whedon said that it's cool and it works, and that he doesn't believe anything vital was left on the cutting room floor.

Can you link this, because I have not read it anywhere.

 

[cherokeesam]

Can you link this, because I have not read it anywhere.

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

 

[Shadowlord X]

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

Cool. No probs.