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

[eXperiment]

SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!11

Awesome Wesyeed.

 

[Maze]

the point was that running time is absolutely no indicator of a film's worth.

besides, return of the king is a crap example. it was far too long. it was by far the flabbiest of the trilogy and could have benefited from losing about 35-40 minutes, epscially towards the end. god, all those interminable denouements...british cinema audiences are usually very quiet, but every time it seemed like the film had reached a conclusion, but then didn't, and just went on and on, there were audible groans. it was self-indulgent and tedious and bloated and embarassing.

having said that, dude, where's my car? was indeed awful.

yup, it could have lost 35/40 mlinute , i agree , and we''d have still a movie of more than three hours..

It is still far too long , explain to us how one could have done in 103 minutes and be really epic please.

ps : imo the directo'rs cut of Felloswhip of the ring seemed less long imo, that the original cut imo..odd eh?

you know why? Because the running time that Jackson added , gave imo to some of the plot points more meat , and hence felts more interesting.

Suddenly ,i was more involved

 

[kentshakespeare]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/return_of_the_jedi/

seing how it scored with critics and audience there are not a lot of people who agree with you ( including me )

The ewoks are arguable as they were here visibly here to sell toys and could have easily been remplaced by Wookies for example , that luke/darth/emperor scene is hardly less arguable on the other hand , seeing as it clicked with critics, and people..you didn't like it , we're talking personnal taste.

Anyways, That one like it or not Rotj is considered a classic .

Ps: i'm awaiting to know , how you would do Rotj

all judgements on a film's merits are based on personal taste. I'm not really intersted in whether critics or audiences liked it, I'm interested in whether I liked it. but I'd always considered ROTJ to be by some way the weakest of the original trilogy.

as mentioned, I'd have trimmed some of the fat, in other words, some of the sentimental ewoks tosh and the bloated luke/darth/emperor stuff. those scenes particularly were badly acted, melodramatic, and went on for far too long. they dragged down the pace of the the film's climax.

to me, the fact that X3 is 103 minutes signifies to me that they're not going to be taking themselves far too seriously and having delusions of epic grandeur that are going to manifest themselves in an unnecessarily turgid film.

 

[Maze]

all judgements on a film's merits are based on personal taste. I'm not really intersted in whether critics or audiences liked it, I'm interested in whether I liked it. but I'd always considered ROTJ to be by some way the weakest of the original trilogy.

as mentioned, I'd have trimmed some of the fat, in other words, some of the sentimental ewoks tosh and the bloated luke/darth/emperor stuff. those scenes particularly were badly acted, melodramatic, and went on for far too long. they dragged down the pace of the the film's climax.

to me, the fact that X3 is 103 minutes signifies to me that they're not going to be taking themselves far too seriously and having delusions of epic grandeur that are going to manifest themselves in an unnecessarily turgid film.

. but I'd always considered ROTJ to be by some way the weakest of the original trilogy

lol thanks you.

you didn't like it.

after that there are nothing to add.

Seriously

critic is a job ,a real job.. there are guys like everywhere who does it badly i agree..But that doesn't change the fact, that it's a job that ask for knowledge ,a lot of knowledge , and talent ..not everybody can do it well ..personnal taste is more educated when you have some of the knowledge that they have.When you ear is more educated ,for exemple, your taste in music change often: you understand it better.you can listen to things that you would have not understood before..

that said , that doesn't change the fact that joe Public opinion should be respected , and can be interesting (personnaly , i love to hear the vision that somebody have from a movie..the subjectivity is really interesting sometimes )

 

[Maze]

to me, the fact that X3 is 103 minutes signifies to me that they're not going to be taking themselves far too seriously and having delusions of epic grandeur that are going to manifest themselves in an unnecessarily turgid film.

that's your interpretation of what's happening. so ok .

but based on fact , ignoring what Kinberg and all said, the more recent Fox/Marvel had a short running times ..and were mediocre movies at that...

So , one say that there are no concerns to have , one really takes people for fools.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The part that disappoints me the most is, that with this news, I truly doubt this movie will reach the level established by Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins.

X3....really shouldve been the movie to step things up. A deep subplot about a cure for mutants, which any minority can relate to? Magneto gearing up for the epic war he's been talking about for the past two films, gathering up alot of mutants, some very well known and beloved? Angel and Beast finally appearing in the X-Films? Kitty and Colossus finally becoming X-Members after being bit players? And most importantly, the Dak Phoenix Saga, for the first time ever, in live action. All this wouldve made X-Men THE movie to beat, not just for comics, but for any movie this year, especially in the face of Superman returning to the big screen after twenty years.

But, the X-Men is not owned by Sony, who started developing spider-man 3's script since...well...when spider-man 2's premiere at the box office. It's not owned by Warner Brothers, who's gotten their heads out of their ass and is producing work like Singer's Superman, Nolan's Batman, V for Vendetta, and Joss Whedon on Wonder Woman. Nope, it was handed to Fox, a company known for half assing its movie's and wanting nothing more than a cheap buck. They never had faith in the X Flicks. Singer couldnt do beast or angel or a danger room because he never had the budget. For X2, all he got was 110 million bucks to make a movie about a dozen characters, 95% of them who have superpowers. Spider-Man 2, on the other hand, got 200 Million. For a movie where only two guys had superpowers. And now, the only reason they give a rats ass is because singer was smart enough to leave.

People wonder why fans have been giving this movie a hard time. You never heard people gripe about X2. Why? Because people had reason to have faith in that movie. We dont have that here. what we have here, is a movie that is looking more and more like another Fantastic Four, or Elektra. The sad part is, both of those movies couldve been on par with the spider-man films if fox cared. We dodged a bullet with X1 and X2, because we had Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto. With X3, its like the fact that having Fox Studios as the backer has finally come to bite the X-Franchise in the ass.

I think of what X3 couldve been, and its just a shame. I think of what the franchise couldve been, and its just sad.

I have known ever since Bryan Singer left that we would get a crap third movie that would be as short as possible. And everything except the trailers have since proved me right, I hate Fox, i now dont look forward to any project they do because they are the ****test movie studio out there. They have ruined what should have been the best comic book movie ever, even better than Batman Begins, which is by far the pinnacle of CB movies, but no, Fox give us two terrible writers, an average director and an hour and a half "return of the king". **** you Fox, **** you very much.

Oh and Batman totally agree with your post.

 

[kentshakespeare]

joe public's opinion should be respected? are you kidding me?! joe public turns mcdonald's and starbucks into staggeringly successful businesses despite their appalling products, makes the likes of maroon 5 and celine dion huge stars despite them being an insult to the very idea of music itself, and has, bafflingly, sustained tom cruise's status as a megastar all these years...balls to joe public, say I. and I'm one of them.

I agree critics may have more theoretical insight into films than we mere mortals, but it also means they may lose perspective. the only person's opinion that matters is your own, my friend. don't give me links to reviews to prove the worth of a film. show me the film and I'll make up my own mind.

It is still far too long , explain to us how one could have done in 103 minutes and be really epic please.

none of the LOTR films could have been done in that time, I'd agree. but we're not talking about a long-winded tolkienesqe epic, we're talking about the X-men, which I do not think would suit the 'epic' treatment.

ps : imo the directo'rs cut of Felloswhip of the ring seemed less long imo, that the original cut imo..odd eh?

I agree. the director's cut was fantastic. but a film should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story. it's perfectly valid to say 'it needed to have more character development between x and x' if such a thing is absent, and the addition of that would obviously necessitate a longer running time. but it's pointless to say 'it needs to be xx minutes longer' without any knowledge of what, if anything, is missing.

 

[Maze]

Originally Posted by The Batman
The part that disappoints me the most is, that with this news, I truly doubt this movie will reach the level established by Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins.

X3....really shouldve been the movie to step things up. A deep subplot about a cure for mutants, which any minority can relate to? Magneto gearing up for the epic war he's been talking about for the past two films, gathering up alot of mutants, some very well known and beloved? Angel and Beast finally appearing in the X-Films? Kitty and Colossus finally becoming X-Members after being bit players? And most importantly, the Dak Phoenix Saga, for the first time ever, in live action. All this wouldve made X-Men THE movie to beat, not just for comics, but for any movie this year, especially in the face of Superman returning to the big screen after twenty years.

But, the X-Men is not owned by Sony, who started developing spider-man 3's script since...well...when spider-man 2's premiere at the box office. It's not owned by Warner Brothers, who's gotten their heads out of their ass and is producing work like Singer's Superman, Nolan's Batman, V for Vendetta, and Joss Whedon on Wonder Woman. Nope, it was handed to Fox, a company known for half assing its movie's and wanting nothing more than a cheap buck. They never had faith in the X Flicks. Singer couldnt do beast or angel or a danger room because he never had the budget. For X2, all he got was 110 million bucks to make a movie about a dozen characters, 95% of them who have superpowers. Spider-Man 2, on the other hand, got 200 Million. For a movie where only two guys had superpowers. And now, the only reason they give a rats ass is because singer was smart enough to leave.

People wonder why fans have been giving this movie a hard time. You never heard people gripe about X2. Why? Because people had reason to have faith in that movie. We dont have that here. what we have here, is a movie that is looking more and more like another Fantastic Four, or Elektra. The sad part is, both of those movies couldve been on par with the spider-man films if fox cared. We dodged a bullet with X1 and X2, because we had Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto. With X3, its like the fact that having Fox Studios as the backer has finally come to bite the X-Franchise in the ass.

I think of what X3 couldve been, and its just a shame. I think of what the franchise couldve been, and its just sad.

i can't agree more.

great post Batman

 

[Maze]

none of the LOTR films could have been done in that time, I'd agree. but we're not talking about a long-winded tolkienesqe epic, we're talking about the X-men, which I do not think would suit the 'epic' treatment.

How about the Claremont /Millar/Byrne/Kubert/Paul Smith/Lee/Anderson and countless talented individual?

anyways ,we will not agree: based on the momentum ( the war) that they builded since two movies , based on the number of characters and plot points , X3 should be epic (and that was a word used by Kinberg and all )

 

[Maze]

joe public's opinion should be respected? are you kidding me?! joe public turns mcdonald's and starbucks into staggeringly successful businesses despite their appalling products, makes the likes of maroon 5 and celine dion huge stars despite them being an insult to the very idea of music itself, and has, bafflingly, sustained tom cruise's status as a megastar all these years...balls to joe public, say I. and I'm one of them.

yup;

Joe public did make a success of fantastic four too.

Fox like Joe public

i didn't said i liked it .. i said i respected it

after that , should Joe public be more educated sometimes? that's what i think..but to not respect the way he is , without really knowing who he is individually is wrong.

it's too easy to judge somebody..

I agree critics may have more theoretical insight into films than we mere mortals, but it also means they may lose perspective. the only person's opinion that matters is your own, my friend. don't give me links to reviews to prove the worth of a film. show me the film and I'll make up my own mind.

Ok Joe Public

 

[kentshakespeare]

How about the Claremont /Millar/Byrne/Kubert/Paul Smith/Lee/Anderson and countless talented individual?

in comics, indeed. comics do not suffer from the same demands of credulity as movies. there are countless tales from x-men that would qualify as epic. the x-verse of the movies, however, is much more scaled back. the dark phoenix saga on film will not and could not encompass the hellfire club, mastermind, phoenix destroying a star system, the shi'ar and the imperial guard, or even the birth of phoenix and her slow, gradual evolution into dark phoenix.

they've established the x-men in more or less real-world terms. the treatment is entirely different.

in fact, it strikes me as I write this that the only way to do the dark phoenix saga justice on film is to do it as a 20-episode huge budget series.

 

[xstormfan]

nothings wrong with maroon 5 or celine dion....you have no taste in music

 

[Phoenix_Rising]

Hey guys,

I'm really not worried about the running time, it's quality not quanity which matters. As Simon has said most of the characters have been developed in X1/X2, now all that needs to happen is for those character arcs to come to a close. Also there are many classic movies under 2 hours which have been very successful:

Blade Runner 117min 8.3/10

Alien 116min 8.4/10

Terminator 108min 7.9/10

War of the Worlds (1953) 85min 7.2/10

Serenity 119min 8.0/10

Back to the future 111min 8.1/10

Kill Bill Vol.1 111min 8.3/10

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark 115min 8.7/10

Just as there have been many flopped movies which have been over 2 hours such as:

The Sixth Day 123min 5.8/10

Armageddon 150min 5.7/10

Godzilla 140min 4.4/10

Hulk 138min 6/10

The Lost World: Jurrasic Park 129min 5.5/10

Star Trek: The Motion Picture 136min 5.9/10

Waterworld 136min 5.3/10

So you see, you can't judge a film on it's running time, it simply doesn't work like that. I believe X3 will be a fantastic movie judging by what we've seen so far and hopefully the best of the 3. I won't be going into the cinema thinking: oh god this is going to be too short, I'll be going in there thinking I can't wait to see this movie! So stop worrying about the running time, even close this thread because it's pointless. Come May 26th every1 will be laughing at the fact this thread was created! Go to see X3 with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is, not how long it is, May 26th here we come!

 

[kentshakespeare]

nothings wrong with maroon 5 or celine dion....you have no taste in music

funniest post I've ever read. thank you.

 

[Maze]

in comics, indeed. comics do not suffer from the same demands of credulity as movies. there are countless tales from x-men that would qualify as epic. the x-verse of the movies, however, is much more scaled back. the dark phoenix saga on film will not and could not encompass the hellfire club, mastermind, phoenix destroying a star system, the shi'ar and the imperial guard, or even the birth of phoenix and her slow, gradual evolution into dark phoenix.

they've established the x-men in more or less real-world terms. the treatment is entirely different.

in fact, it strikes me as I write this that the only way to do the dark phoenix saga justice on film is to do it as a 20-episode huge budget series.

Yup,but you know Saving private Ryan is considered epic.

anyways,yup the original material of the Xmen is epic in his own way..And of course , it needed to be adapted. who said the contrary?

I was basing myself also, and especially on what has been done since two movies.

Singer attemped at an Epic movie with X2 (and my feeling based on the first sequence of X1 , is that he wanted it to be really "grand" too), and he almost succeed..( i say almost because , you can see that all the money that he needed was not always there ..he failed with the pacing sometimes too)

And yes , the phoenix Saga could at least sustain a movie ,even without the shiar Background a movie ,with a long running time.

It's not a simple tale.

The Xmen movie should be epic in their own way.

 

[Maze]

Hey guys,

I'm really not worried about the running time, it's quality not quanity which matters. As Simon has said most of the characters have been developed in X1/X2, now all that needs to happen is for those character arcs to come to a close. Also there are many classic movies under 2 hours which have been very successful:

Blade Runner 117min 8.3/10

Alien 116min 8.4/10

Terminator 108min 7.9/10

War of the Worlds (1953) 85min 7.2/10

Serenity 119min 8.0/10

Back to the future 111min 8.1/10

Kill Bill Vol.1 111min 8.3/10

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark 115min 8.7/10

Just as there have been many flopped movies which have been over 2 hours such as:

The Sixth Day 123min 5.8/10

Armageddon 150min 5.7/10

Godzilla 140min 4.4/10

Hulk 138min 6/10

The Lost World: Jurrasic Park 129min 5.5/10

Star Trek: The Motion Picture 136min 5.9/10

Waterworld 136min 5.3/10

So you see, you can't judge a film on it's running time, it simply doesn't work like that. I believe X3 will be a fantastic movie judging by what we've seen so far and hopefully the best of the 3. I won't be going into the cinema thinking: oh god this is going to be too short, I'll be going in there thinking I can't wait to see this movie! So stop worrying about the running time, even close this thread because it's pointless. Come May 26th every1 will be laughing at the fact this thread was created! Go to see X3 with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is, not how long it is, May 26th here we come!

Your examples doesn't match in almost any ways , what we know of X3.

 

[Maze]

And some of this movie, that you took as exemple clock at almost two hours ( and it is really almost the case with Serenity) 14 minutes more in X3 would be a lot.(hell it could be the final battle)

 

[berzerko89]

Lets just hope that we will be satisfied. I know we will.

 

[Milkman95]

^I agree, couldn't agree more with The Batman's post........

 

[Milkman95]

Like I said before, I'm disappointed.

I just hope it's not another FF when they edit it in a manner to make it faster paced to make up for the mediocre script........I hope to God I'm wrong, because since the first two films were so well done, this trilogy could have been the best ever done, or at least right on par with Spider-man.....

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In anser to the thread question, i am totally and utterley pissed off that this movie isnt at least two hours long. The amount of things that this movie needs to cover just dictates that IMO. Take the previous example of Serenity, which is 1hr 54 mins long actually, over ten mins longer than what X3 is at the moment. Serenity had 11 main characters, and one main plot. Now people complain that that movie wasnt long enough and some characters didnt get enough screen time!!!!!

Yet X3 has twice as many main characters and two main plots and is 11 mins shorter at the moment, what a freaking joke!!!!!

 

[xstormfan]

X-3 doesnt have 22 main characters....16 at the most and some of these are supporting roles

 

[britrogue]

I just came in here to cry.........................I really hope they're kidding us with this 103 minutes crap.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

X-3 doesnt have 22 main characters....16 at the most and some of these are supporting roles

Well

Pheonix, Cyclops, Juggernaut, Pyro, The President,
Xavier Beast Callisto, Rogue, Worthington Snr,
Magneto, Angel, Kitty, Collosus, Mystique,
Wolverine, Storm, Iceman, Trask,

Thats 19 main characters, not to mention Quills, Arclight, Psylocke, Kavita Rao, Multiple Man and Moira McTaggart all having more than a cameo according to Kinberg and that is a lot more characters than Serenity buddy, with a film 11mins shorter.

 

[Milkman95]

Looks like it's possible Marvel fans could have yet another disappointment on their hands - add it to the heap with Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, Blade III, and FF..........