Apocalypse Fox officially reveals the running time for this movie

[TheNewSlayer]

Well what would you prefer the director looked over the film to judge before he releases it or just throws everything in and waits to see how people react after?

He doesn't have to do that, he can actually use everything that is good and cut the bad but why would assume that there is a lot bad stuff to cut?

Maybe he is able to make a long movie without the need to cut stuff from it.

Again, you're assuming that in order for the movie to be good it has to get lots of cuts.

 

[TWayneP]

The thing is that a lot people here are so traumatize with longer movies in general that people assume that a longer movie means bad.

Sure, I have no way to know if a longer movie would be good or bad, but people here just assume that longer is a bad movie. What happened to hope?

Are you guys so sad or unhappy that can't hope for good things?

I hope for a longer movie and hope for it to be awesome. Now, if it not, then, its fine, not the end of the world.

After watching Rogue Cut I loved all added scenes, even if they weren't necessary for the plot, they were cool to watch, and also I movie doesn't have to have only what's its necessary for the plot, it can have some extra stuff not necessary just cause of the fan service.

Literally NO ONE feels this way or is doing this lol. I have no idea what your point is here lol.

I can understand you want a longer film for the sake of a longer film, because cool stuff... but that's just not how film making works at all.

 

[Sithborg]

I don't know, how is it guarantee to be bad?

We have to hope for the best.

But with this atitude is like you already made your mind to be bad only because it's longer.

It's called trusting the film maker. Singer will not keep something just to keep it. See, cutting a very expensive action scene from Superman Returns. Or Rogue. And having seen the Rogue Cut, I very much agree with Singer's decision to cut it. So, I trust him. No matter what the length, I trust Singer to have made the right calls for the length of the movie.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

or maybe singer wants to make the movie he wants and he likes the run time he ended up with

I doubt that. I have my sources that he wanted for the Rogue Cut to be the one in the theater but the Studio didn't cause it would be less screening time for a day, so the come up with the pacing excuse which apparently is so good that everyone bought it.

As JP said, no one has said it would be bad just because it is longer, just that it will be as long as it needs to be. Everyone is merely aware of the possibility of poor pacing, as evidenced by the Rogue Cut and other superhero films that tried to do too much.

I don't think that the Rogue Cut had bad pacing but that's another subjetive.

You could have hope in your hearts and believe that Singer can make a 3 hours X-men movie and would be awesome. But I' know that the Studio would never allow that cause of the less screening time for a day thing.

I'm confident that the would will be great. I just wish for more time for all characters to have lines and not just be there like Blink and Sunspot were in the theatrical release of DOFP.

 

[kevork89]

Why does having lines equate good character. I seem to remember Mystique saying one line in the first X-Men but she was a huge standout and major presence. Blink didn't need to have lines. Her role was fantastic and she was such a great character to have in the future setting. That was her purpose. Having lines and extra screen time doesn't automatically mean the character is done right. And extra runtime doesn't mean a good movie. And even if Fox wants a shorter screen time they're well within their rights to have it. If they think it's a more tighter paced movie then Bryan and his team will make it the best movie possible. Which he's done with his 3 X-Men films we've seen and I'm sure to do with Apocalypse.

 

[TWayneP]

I doubt that. I have my sources that he wanted for the Rogue Cut to be the one in the theater but the Studio didn't cause it would be less screening time for a day, so the come up with the pacing excuse which apparently is so good that everyone bought it.



I don't think that the Rogue Cut had bad pacing but that's another subjetive.

You could have hope in your hearts and believe that Singer can make a 3 hours X-men movie and would be awesome. But I' know that the Studio would never allow that cause of the less screening time for a day thing.

I'm confident that the would will be great. I just wish for more time for all characters to have lines and not just be there like Blink and Sunspot were in the theatrical release of DOFP.

We have our "sources" too, Bryan Singer himself haha. Just listen to the commentary for the Rogue cut and listen to the examination and honesty in his and Ottmans voice. There ARE scenes they wanted to keep or move around, but the right decisions were made. The Rogue cut isn't even that much of a longer film (if at all) so it would have nothing to do with theater showings.

You don't think the Rogue cut has bad pacing because you can't remove yourself from the situation as a fan. You need to examine it as a film seen by millions of others who aren't as big of fans as us. Like I said, there needs to be a balance and every level of the film has to work.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

thats called bad film making thats filling up precious screen time to fan service material instead of having more important story or character driven material developed

Not to me. Sure it has to have important screen time for story and character driven material, I agree. But can also have some extra stuff for the purpose of fan service, a scene that didn't need really to be there but it was put to please the fans.

Literally NO ONE feels this way or is doing this lol. I have no idea what your point is here lol.

I can understand you want a longer film for the sake of a longer film, because cool stuff... but that's just not how film making works at all.

I'll simplify my point. I'd love to see a longer movie, like 3 hours. And people assume that if the movie had 3 hours would be bad and have pacing issues.

All I'm saying is that's not true. If the Director is talented he can make a long movie with great pacing.

It's called trusting the film maker. Singer will not keep something just to keep it. See, cutting a very expensive action scene from Superman Returns. Or Rogue. And having seen the Rogue Cut, I very much agree with Singer's decision to cut it. So, I trust him. No matter what the length, I trust Singer to have made the right calls for the length of the movie.

I never said that I don't trust him. I'm just saying that I hope that he can make a longer movie. In fact if I'm saying anything is that I trust that he can do a longer movie and to be awesome with great pacing and everything.

People here that are assuming that longer movie would be bad.

 

[Frankeh]

People here that are assuming that longer movie would be bad.

No, they are assuming the filmmakers are making the right calls as to what scenes should be cut.

Look, I was irritated because they cut the mall scene, but I've gotten over it. Surely you can, too?

 

[TWayneP]

I'll simplify my point. I'd love to see a longer movie, like 3 hours. And people assume that if the movie had 3 hours would be bad and have pacing issues.

All I'm saying is that's not true. If the Director is talented he can make a long movie with great pacing.

Again... No one is doing that lol. No one is assuming that longer is worse. We all just trust Singer and his cuts, because of what happened with the Rogue cut.

I'd love a 3 hour Singer X-Men film too.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

Why does having lines equate good character. I seem to remember Mystique saying one line in the first X-Men but she was a huge standout and major presence. Blink didn't need to have lines. Her role was fantastic and she was such a great character to have in the future setting. That was her purpose. Having lines and extra screen time doesn't automatically mean the character is done right. And extra runtime doesn't mean a good movie. And even if Fox wants a shorter screen time they're well within their rights to have it. If they think it's a more tighter paced movie then Bryan and his team will make it the best movie possible. Which he's done with his 3 X-Men films we've seen and I'm sure to do with Apocalypse.

It doesn't mean one way or the other but I don't like to assume the worse. I think we could know little bit more about Blink and Sunspot in DOFP which didn't happen in the theatrical version and neither the Rogue cut but at least they had lines in the rogue cut. You sound defensive for the Studio.

We have our "sources" too, Bryan Singer himself haha. Just listen to the commentary for the Rogue cut and listen to the examination and honesty in his and Ottmans voice. There ARE scenes they wanted to keep or move around, but the right decisions were made. The Rogue cut isn't even that much of a longer film (if at all) so it would have nothing to do with theater showings.

You don't think the Rogue cut has bad pacing because you can't remove yourself from the situation as a fan. You need to examine it as a film seen by millions of others who aren't as big of fans as us. Like I said, there needs to be a balance and every level of the film has to work.

You know that they can lie right? A actor or director sometimes have to say stuff they don't mean cause of his work.

Look, the pacing in Rogue Cut was fine but I understand what the Studio wanted to do. They wanted to have a movie with faster pacing and suspense for the people who doesn't even know the name of the characters not to get bored at the theater, I know that.

But this is bad for the fans.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

No, they are assuming the filmmakers are making the right calls as to what scenes should be cut.

Look, I was irritated because they cut the mall scene, but I've gotten over it. Surely you can, too?

And you know why they cut the mall scene? It wasn't cause of the pacing, that's for sure. They cut cause of the total running time of the movie. No Studio want a long movie cause of the screening times per day reduction.

I could only hope for they to release a extend version later on like they did with the Rogue Cut and The Wolverine Extended version.

Again... No one is doing that lol. No one is assuming that longer is worse. We all just trust Singer and his cuts, because of what happened with the Rogue cut.

I'd love a 3 hour Singer X-Men film too.

That's what I'd love to see. Maybe they'll release a Extended version. I mean BvS is getting 30 more minutes on dvd.

 

[Frankeh]

And you know why they cut the mall scene? It wasn't cause of the pacing, that's for sure. They cut cause of the total running time of the movie. No Studio want a long movie cause of the screening times per day reduction.

Seems like you know something we don't.

 

[Mad Ones]

This thread is pointless drama

 

[TWayneP]

This thread is pointless drama

Indeed. It helps pass the time heh.

 

[Frankeh]

TheNewSlayer will never stop thinking this movie is shorter than it should've been (sight unseen) because of ticket sales.

So I guess we should just stop.

 

[Erik Lensherr]

6 days until the premiere and the running time for this movie still open?

Are you kidding me?

 

[Leo Zelinsky]

So is it 3 hours or not?

 

[TheNewSlayer]

6 days until the premiere and the running time for this movie still open?

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, there's just so many different sources about the running time.

Fox.ES says 135m

AMC US says 140m

AMC UK says 170m

Fandango says 140m

Empire UK says 147m

Rotten Tomatoes says 136m

I'm sure theres even more sources than this. All major websites about comics are silente about the running time.

 

[kevork89]

Hell I LOVE rogue. She's my fav character and after a second viewing the rogue cut isn't as good as theatrical. The only thing from the rogue cut that should've been kept in the theatrical cut is Storm's speech. No idea why that was cut. But besides that, the rogue subplot and Mystique at the mansion scenes needed to go. They just didn't work overall in the film.

No one said the mall scene is cut. But it's reduced. Based off of pictures there's shots of them in an arcade, record store, walking around etc. These scenes might not work in the context of the movie overall especially because most likely at that same time apocalypse could be coming to the mansion to get Charles. Wait and see the movie before everyone freaks out already. Singer has said many times during filming things he films earlier in production often get changed as they film more later on. New scenes added that might take away from other scenes. His scenes are altered on the day sometimes dialogue written in and taken out. It's all apart of the process.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

TheNewSlayer will never stop thinking this movie is shorter than it should've been (sight unseen) because of ticket sales.

So I guess we should just stop.

I truly believe this because we're talking about Fox. If it was another Studio then I'd believe that the movie is shorter because it has to not because ticket sales. Is just you don't know them like I do.

 

[TWayneP]

I truly believe this because we're talking about Fox. If it was another Studio then I'd believe that the movie is shorter because it has to not because ticket sales. Is just you don't know them like I do.

Oh, please inform us on how you know them then...

We know them just as well as you do, but Fox isn't all that bad for a hollywood movie studio. It's about money with any studio. It's a business.

 

[Snikt]

I truly believe this because we're talking about Fox. If it was another Studio then I'd believe that the movie is shorter because it has to not because ticket sales. Is just you don't know them like I do.

You know what's an awesome movie; both critically & commercially that's under 2 hrs from Fox?

Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

And another film, considered by many to be the best in the franchise (not from Fox)?

The Bourne Ultimatum.

There are plenty of films under 2 hours that are great films. Quantity does not equal quality.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

You know what's an awesome movie; both critically & commercially that's under 2 hrs from Fox?

Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

And another film, considered by many to be the best in the franchise (not from Fox)?

The Bourne Ultimatum.

There are plenty of films under 2 hours that are great films. Quantity does not equal quality.

I agree. I think you misunderstood me or I'm saying it wrong.

There are a lot of awesome movies from Fox under 2 hours that are awesome.

Deadpool is only 1 hour and 48 minutes and it was awesome, one of the best x-men movies.

What I'm saying is when Fox has a chance to make a movie longer they waste their opportunity cause it won't be that lucrative. For example, Days of Future Past, in my opinion The Rogue Cut should be the one on theaters but they said no cause of the screening per day due the fact that Rogue Cut is about 2 hours and 30 minutes. So they had to reduce the time and they cut the Rogue subplot. That didn't ruin the movie. The movie was still awesome. But could have been better if they'd make the way it was supposed to be.

In my opinion Days of Future Past Theatrical version is awesome but The Rogue Cut is still superior, like super awesome.

Fox decisions are not based on the story of the movie but on what is most lucrative. Sure, they have to make money but Movies are an Art, and sometimes when you don't let the artist express himself, you end up with terrible or less than good movies.

 

[TheNewSlayer]

Oh, please inform us on how you know them then...

We know them just as well as you do, but Fox isn't all that bad for a hollywood movie studio. It's about money with any studio. It's a business.

I know is about money, any business is. But Fox take that so serious that ruin great opportunities.

Like The Rogue Cut which in my opinion should be the one in theaters. And instead we got a shorter version cause of the screening times per day.

 

[TWayneP]

What I'm saying is when Fox has a chance to make a movie longer they waste their opportunity cause it won't be that lucrative. For example, Days of Future Past, in my opinion The Rogue Cut should be the one on theaters but they said no cause of the screening per day due the fact that Rogue Cut is about 2 hours and 30 minutes. So they had to reduce the time and they cut the Rogue subplot. That didn't ruin the movie. The movie was still awesome. But could have been better if they'd make the way it was supposed to be.

In my opinion Days of Future Past Theatrical version is awesome but The Rogue Cut is still superior, like super awesome.

Fox decisions are not based on the story of the movie but on what is most lucrative. Sure, they have to make money but Movies are an Art, and sometimes when you don't let the artist express himself, you end up with terrible or less than good movies.

In your opinion the Rogue cut should have been in theaters and is super awesome. In Bryan Singer's opinion the Rogue cut should not have been in theaters, and was not. They DID make the film the way it was supposed to be. Just listen to their commentary on the cut. They don't "lie" they go into GREAT detail on why things were cut, and their EXACT thought process. It's not just some conspiracy theory.

So still not seeing your point here. The theatrical is a superior film for general release, no matter WHO made the decision. The Rogue cut is for just the fans, bad pacing and all. It's that plain and simple.

Whatever comes to theaters with apocalypse, THAT will be the definitive version, that Singer and co. will have edited and passionately put together. Singer might as well be Fox's Chris Nolan haha.