How much do you really care about X3 being only 103 minutes?

[Aiden]

well, i mean i wanted to (i was being melodramatic there)...it was THAT good.

Okay

 

[TNC9852002]

I won't have any issue with the running time until after I've watched the movie and see what they've done with it.

Until then, I have nothing to be that dissapointed about...

-TNC

 

[demitri_vampiro]

i would be pretty dissapointed if the movie is only 103 min. even if it's good (which can hardly be with all the stuff going around) it will be too fast paced. also as an end of a trilogy it should have at least be as long as x-2
still gonna see it though

 

[Mr Sensitive]

It is really a short film.

It won't be the great movie I was hoping for, but maybe in this tiny running time they can make something decent.

Hollywood, Hollywood. Tsc, tsc.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

i'd rather have a short tight film rather than a long one with lots of unnecessary scenes involved.

Tight is the word. It will be so tight as a rigor mortis and it will get into the glorious pantheon of editing butchery, like FF or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

With all the new characters, with two storylines going together, all the dramatic aspects of Jean coming back to life, a huge battle of mutants, etc. 103 min. is just crap.

I bet they'll drop a "Director's cut" in DVD not long afterwards, and fill their pockets with as much showings as they can with that ridiculous running time.

 

[thegameq]

Reading that makes me feel kind of sorry for the writers on this film. I can't help but feel, that as fans, they are probably torn between their love and knowledge of the source material and what they're being told/paid to do. Their creative tendency and the small confines with which they have write this story, knowing what could have been and what has transpired instead.


*sigh*

So much for the deep EPIC so many of us wanted and was looking forward to.


I guess films like the LOTR trilogy, SM2, etc. will continue to be the exception and not the rule. I just don't understand why film studios keep cutting these types of films short of their potential. Are they really that big of a risk? Jeez, you'd think the fantasy genre has earned enough respect and money over the past decade to consistently warrant "the full treatment".

 

[Prognosticator]

Tight is the word. It will be so tight as a rigor mortis and it will get into the glorious pantheon of editing butchery, like FF or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

With all the new characters, with two storylines going together, all the dramatic aspects of Jean coming back to life, a huge battle of mutants, etc. 103 min. is just crap.

I bet they'll drop a "Director's cut" in DVD not long afterwards, and fill their pockets with as much showings as they can with that ridiculous running time.

There won't be any director's cut. if you read the interview w/Simon at the top link posted, he says that EVERY scene they shot (minus 1) is in the movie! That means with everything they have in their back pocket, this thing's going to putter in at 103 mins...

 

[Prognosticator]

It's funny, I remember there being a whole "nuther" set of problems we were destroying last summer; namely the fact that the director jumped ship twice, and when they went into production, there still wasn't a finished script...

Let's all put our cards on the table for a second and be honest: When was the last time a movie w/no finished script and multiple director swaps was haled as the "Movie Event of the Year"?

...and then there's the matter of the 103 minutes of "Epicness" to take in??

I'll admit, I've given this project PLENTY of grace. I gave it grace when i read early interviews, I gave it grace when i saw the teaser, then more grace when i watched the trailer and checked out the cool website...but 103 minutes? ...i'm not God. I don't have unlimited amounts of grace to give... we'll see may 26.

 

[thegameq]

JP3 might end up being a pretty good comparison, except the only thing they could really do with the JP storyline in the third sequel is show more dinosaurs.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. You could probably add T3 to the comparison list. Action with a dribble or two of character developement. Not terrible films, but very far from the greatness established by their predecessors. Interestingly enough, both franchises fell from grace so to speak, when the original directors left the directors chair...draw your own conclusions.

The fanboy in me really wants this film to be stupendous.....but when I take off the rose-colored glasses, things just don't look so good....

I have a feeling the JP3 and T3 comparisons may be spot on.

 

[MemnochZERO]

what running time are you reffereing to? lol...nothing is confirmed so dont get upset YET

Wait, not confermed? How is this a thread then? lol
Well, if it's not confermed i can breathe easier, but my opinon on running time for this film stands. Under two hours for a non comedy is just a travisty.

 

[Storm22]

I won't have any issue with the running time until after I've watched the movie and see what they've done with it.

Until then, I have nothing to be that dissapointed about...

-TNC

I agree 100%!!

 

[thegameq]

But that's what I was hoping for.

Ditto.

 

[kytrigger]

Wait, not confermed? How is this a thread then? lol
Well, if it's not confermed i can breathe easier, but my opinon on running time for this film stands. Under two hours for a non comedy is just a travisty.

1) 103 minutes uisn't confirmed yet, but it will be around this time, give or take a few minutes. Simon said it was around this time, but he didn't clock it, so it might not be 103 minutes EXACTLY.

2) There are plenty of non-comedy movies that are under 2 hours and are absolutely fantastic movies (IMO of course).

 

[Mr Sensitive]

2) There are plenty of non-comedy movies that are under 2 hours and are absolutely fantastic movies (IMO of course).

Yeah, but they don't have to present decently Beast, Angel, Kitty, Juggernaut, Trask, etc and make them work smooth in the story;

they don't have to give enough room to Jean coming back to life and its consequences;

they don't have an entire sequence in the Danger Room;

they aren't closing a trilogy that was coming in a crescendo;

they don't have to give enough room to make Magneto establish plausibly his plan and his troops;

they don't have to expand Storm's character;

they don't have to include an epic final battle;

they don't have to manage a dozen important characters from the previous movies and wrap their stories up.

That's the whole problem.

 

[kytrigger]

Yeah, but they don't have to present decently Beast, Angel, Kitty, Juggernaut, Trask, etc and make them work smooth in the story;

they don't have to give enough room to Jean coming back to life and its consequences;

they don't have an entire sequence in the Danger Room;

they aren't closing a trilogy that was coming in a crescendo;

they don't have to give enough room to make Magneto establish plausibly his plan and his troops;

they don't have to expand Storm's character;

they don't have to include an epic final battle;

they don't have to manage a dozen important characters from the prvious movies and wrap their stories up.

That's the whole problem.

I get what you're saying, and I am somewhat worried too (although I am reserving any negative comment until after I've seen it), but I made my point because there are a number of posters here that think that ANY movie that isn't animated or a comedy have to be over 2 hours to be good, and I disagree with that.

 

[thegameq]

But then again, if Peter Jackson were the one directing X3, it would be 3 and a half hours long, and there would be giant CGI Sentinels from the beginning to the end.

HELLS YEAH BABY!! NOW WE'RE TALKING X-MEN!!

 

[thegameq]

But then again, if Peter Jackson were the one directing X3, it would be 3 and a half hours long, and there would be giant CGI Sentinels from the beginning to the end.

HELLS YEAH BABY!! NOW WE'RE TALKING X-MEN!!

 

[thegameq]

but dammit(!), in this day and age movies can be as good as possible! scripts can be marvels in their own rights, special effects are good enough to make us cry, and actors finally respect comics/heroes enough to take the material seriously...

...so why, then, do we have to put up with mediocre treatment of some of the most respected modern-day literature in America? sorry, i honestly want to see x3 as much as any of you (if you can believe that), but if i'm going to pay $10 damn dollars, i wouldn't mind seeing a live-action movie that has a running time longer than 'The Little Mermaid'!

Because they (the studio, directors) just don't get it. They have no vision and can't look beyond their profit margins and egos. For the directors; just make the damn film--NOT YOUR PERSONAL FILM. For the studios, just look at the success of other films in the genre and think: if they gave the sorcue material such a high priority and yet still reaped huge profits and critical acclaim, why can't we?

 

[Roma]

dude stop heaving a conversations by yourself, that's spamming

 

[thegameq]

dude stop heaving a conversations by yourself, that's spamming

Not my intention, just doing some catching on this topic.

 

[Roma]

Then edit your first post instead of multiple posts

 

[J.Howlett]

If the running time is indeed 103 minutes (with credits), that means this film only takes place over one or two days and they literally get right into the film.

And Simon does have a point. We really don't need to get into the characters that much that's not related the situation (plot) that happening right now. We already know alot. We need to feel and see what this new situation is like at that particular moment, at that particular time.

Simon described it right; this is a war film. We've been leading to this. It seems to me that this will be a fast film that won't let you take a breather. If they get it emotionally and dramatically right and it feels natural, I won't have a problem with it only being 95 minutes long.

Now, if it's 103 minutes (without credits) then that's a very decent length for the final film. I'm hoping for this but again, if everything feels natural and not rushed, then I'm good.

The four things this film needs to accomplish:

A conclusion to the "war is brewing/the war has begun" storyline.
The same tone as the Singer films.
A natural continuation/conclusion to certain character storylines.
THE BEST ACTION OF THE TRILOGY.

 

[SuperT]

I think most people are just disappointed because they just wanted the movie to be longer just to see the mutants on the screen longer, w/o any regard to the storyline or whatever.

I'm w/ TNC, I'm not disappointed at this runtime. It's one minute less then the first one, and that one was awesome. I'll be a smart person and reserve my thoughts until after I've seen the movie.

 

[kentshakespeare]

there are a number of posters here that think that ANY movie that isn't animated or a comedy have to be over 2 hours to be good, and I disagree with that.

rashomon is 88 minutes. waterworld is 176. which is the better film?

to those people who have decided the film is going to be crap based on the running time and the number of elements that need to be incorporated into it - why don't you wait to see the film and how it's put together rather than making wildly uninformed pre-judgements? some people seem to think that long running time = better value for money. what a depressing attitude. it's like visiting an art gallery and complaining the goya prints are too small.

 

[kentshakespeare]

One of the reasons why I think many didn't like FF was that it was about 105 minutes long (or so it seemed) and it seemed too short.

I think there were far more substantial reasons not to like FF than its length. the lazy script...the sloppy pacing...the poor, nonsensical scene continuity...the TV-movie look...and, most of all, jessica alba...I was glad it wasn't longer.