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

[LastSunrise1981]

he's saying these things, because BB is a DC movie, and it's made by WB, so of course he will critize it, LOTR has nothing to do with X-Men, LOTR is done as far as movies go. he has no competition with them, he's saying these things because of the rumored runtime of X3, he's trying to sell us indirectly on the runtime and rip on a competing franchise.......

No, I understand. I'm just asking a simple question about the running time of certain movies.

Lord of the Rings doesn't have anything to do with X-Men and you're right on that. But it's a simple question and since he feels Batman Begins was too long; I'd love to hear or read his opinion on films like Lord of the Rings, Batman(1989), or even the first two Superman films.

 

[SilentType]

in what way is some art objectively better? explain.

I personally think shakespeare is far superior to tupac, and likewise kubrick to ratner. but again, it's just subjective. are the people (I'm assuming there are some) who judge tupac to be better than shakespeare wrong? perhaps his methods of communication strike a greater, clearer and louder chord with them than shakespeare does. tupac fans will use their own criteria - maybe clarity, humour (let's face it, shakespeare's comedy, uunlike his drama, hasn't exactly aged well) and relevance - to judge between the two.

if we take two opposing musical enities, for example mozart and the sex pistols. is mozart's work objectively superior? no. his music is certainly more complex, multi-faceted, intelligent and technically accomplished, but that assumes that complexity, multi-facetedness, intelligence and technical accomplishment are irrefutable and eternal qualities that determine worth. what about energy, passion, conciseness and spectacle - the things that have earned the sex pistols a place in musical history (personal note: I think they're ****, but that's beside the point)? it all comes down to criteria and who sets the criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JokerNick
arguing about art is like arguing about wether a sunrise or sunset is better, no one's right, no one's wrong.......




no it isn't. evolution is true or untrue entirely independent of what people believe. what matters is how the argument relates to the observable evidence. there is no comparable evidence in art. no one's ever going to find a DNA strand or unearth a set of bones that proves, once and for all, that james joyce is "better" than franz kafka.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

why would I?

I dunno, your last comment seemed to express a little doubt in whether Mr Kinberg is a good jugde of a movie runtime... at least in Batman Begin's case.

 

[bluewolv]

Well if you get specific there were a ton. Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone, The League of Shadows, Falcone's thugs, Zsasz, escaped Arkham patients, Joe Chill, Earle, The corrupt judges, the prisoners Bruce fights in th beginning, Flask, and technically the Joker.

Then following your logic there are about a 100 viilains in x-men last stand when you break down Magnetos army one by one.

 

[TNC9852002]

It did seem too long to me. I remember the mad stampede for the toilets at the end, it was crazy, people climbing over each other to get into the cinema toilets, long lines of people waiting for the toilets.. it was absolute madness...

Both King Kong and LoTR were savaged by critics for being too long; on the upside, the critics had little else to say that was negative.

That sort of length is best kept for the DVD, where you can pause it and take a break! Three hours in one sitting is too much, from a practical human point of view.

I only felt that TTT and ROTK were a bit long...When I watched FOTR for the first time, I was like, "WTF? That's it?"

-TNC

 

[bluewolv]

Good points, X-Maniac..

I definitely understood what Kinberg meant by his views on Batman Begins (also on his view on X2 vs Spider-Man 2)...I could agree with him on a few of his opinions, but I don't completely. He's not out of his mind or anything like that.

-TNC

if he thinks 35 minutes should have been cut from Batman Begins, was bored in the third act, and thought that there were too many villains then yes, in fact he is out of his mind...

 

[JokerNick]

No, I understand. I'm just asking a simple question about the running time of certain movies.

Lord of the Rings doesn't have anything to do with X-Men and you're right on that. But it's a simple question and since he feels Batman Begins was too long; I'd love to hear or read his opinion on films like Lord of the Rings, Batman(1989), or even the first two Superman films.

and he'd prolly sit there and say, they are too long too, he knows that there is a fuss going on over the runtime, and he is trying to reassure us that the runtime is good, that long movies aren't good IHO, and people who are ignorant will go on his word and beleive him, but other people, who have some cinema knowlegde knows that length can both help and destroy a movie, he's obviously got ADD, this movie should be longer based on what me know. but who's to say that they are going to fully explain the stories like we want, they might just give us the bum rush of phoenix and the cure storie....

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Then following your logic there are about a 100 viilains in x-men last stand when you break down Magnetos army one by one.

Well its impossible to know specifically that is why I labeled some in groups. But yeah there is too many characters for X3 to be that short IMO.

 

[kentshakespeare]

How the message is conveyed is very important to appreciating art, not just the message in question. I have strong passions and feelings just as any artist. But if I throw some paint on a canvas as an "expression" of my "true passions" that will not qualify as great art no matter how much I want it to be so. I dont have the technique to convey such messages or expressions.

why not? it worked for jackson pollock (at least I think so - you may think he was a talentless hack). sure, he was a trained artist and gifted painter, but he deliberately abandoned all his technical ability in favour of raw expression. maybe his stuff is so effective because he retained an artist's eye and sensibilities, but to emulate his work requires no training, no technique.

how's about you try throwing some art on canvas at see how it turns out? you might find you have a gift for it...

 

[Mr Sensitive]

in what way is some art objectively better? explain.

I personally think shakespeare is far superior to tupac, and likewise kubrick to ratner. but again, it's just subjective. are the people (I'm assuming there are some) who judge tupac to be better than shakespeare wrong? perhaps his methods of communication strike a greater, clearer and louder chord with them than shakespeare does. tupac fans will use their own criteria - maybe clarity, humour (let's face it, shakespeare's comedy, uunlike his drama, hasn't exactly aged well) and relevance - to judge between the two.

if we take two opposing musical enities, for example mozart and the sex pistols. is mozart's work objectively superior? no. his music is certainly more complex, multi-faceted, intelligent and technically accomplished, but that assumes that complexity, multi-facetedness, intelligence and technical accomplishment are irrefutable and eternal qualities that determine worth. what about energy, passion, conciseness and spectacle - the things that have earned the sex pistols a place in musical history (personal note: I think they're ****, but that's beside the point)? it all comes down to criteria and who sets the criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JokerNick
arguing about art is like arguing about wether a sunrise or sunset is better, no one's right, no one's wrong.......




no it isn't. evolution is true or untrue entirely independent of what people believe. what matters is how the argument relates to the observable evidence. there is no comparable evidence in art. no one's ever going to find a DNA strand or unearth a set of bones that proves, once and for all, that james joyce is "better" than franz kafka.

You yourself said it about complexity, etc etc etc.

Shakespeare's musicality is much more varied than Tupac's (Shakespeare had the Italian Renaissance songbook technique in the palm of his hand; the Latin verse of Ovid; popular Elizabethan songs, etc);

His understanding of many different characters and their psychology are unparalleled (the Merchant of Venice, for instance, puts him side by side with other great mind of his time, Michel de Montaigne, who said the Europeans were more savage than the Indians they said savages) and stretch from kings and noblemen to peasants, grave diggers, men and women of all ages, etc. They're all depicted in his plays;

He wrote more than 1 hundred sonnets that only compare with the best of its genre, DAnte Alighieri's, Guido Cavalcanti's, Camoens' and few others;

He simply reinvented drama in his time, after the efforts of both Greene and Marlowe (and I hope you know what it means, to reinvent all that structure and machinery during its most important time and place);

I could continue for pages.

Relativism, I repeat, is for those who can't read with a bit of discernment.

 

[tonytr1687]

It did seem too long to me. I remember the mad stampede for the toilets at the end, it was crazy, people climbing over each other to get into the cinema toilets, long lines of people waiting for the toilets.. it was absolute madness...

Both King Kong and LoTR were savaged by critics for being too long; on the upside, the critics had little else to say that was negative.

That sort of length is best kept for the DVD, where you can pause it and take a break! Three hours in one sitting is too much, from a practical human point of view.

Well, it is my opinion then that movies shouldn't pander to those who cant keep their bladder in check. Moviegoers should be informed about the film they're seeing. If its three hours long, then dont buy a friggin' drink. It's as simple as that. Oh and for your information LOTR's length was NOT savaged by critics...by any means. King Kong, yes. But the majority of critics thought everything in the LOTR trilogy was necessary. Just check Rottentomatoes.com. Three hours shouldn't be too much if the stuff on screen is of good quality. But these days ppl have short attention spans. It's sad really.

 

[X-Maniac]

Simon has a right to his opinion about Batman Begins. It's a great film and cutting it down 35 minutes wouldn't have made the movie as great as it is, so I disagree with him in that department and believe that those who got bored had major ADD.

I have a serious question here and don't flame me for asking.

Lord of the Rings is an awesome trilogy. I love it, respect it, and have it in my DVD collection to this very day. How is it that a three hour spectacle that had a lot of dialogue, story, character development, and so forth get critically praised and praised by the movie audience.

And yet, people had a hard time sitting through Batman Begins? So if what Simon said is a proven fact, then I wonder if he's seen LOTR then?

LoTR became a cultural phenomenon - certain films just strike the right chord - Star Wars, even Harry Potter... They touch upon something and are unstoppable. Part of it is that they've never been on the screen before, they aren't remakes. And they've become classic in other media - Potter as several books (and it's nothing that brilliant or staggering or even that original), LoTR as a book (that by today's standards is far too difficult for most kids). Star Wars built a following in the 70s as the classic space movie during an era obsessed with the idea of space travel.

LoTR and even Potter create a hype... the public get sucked into a vortex. I saw a program on TV about the release of the last Microsoft Windows software update and the rush for it in American stores - they showed a woman of about 90 clutching the box and asked her about it.. she said she didn't know what she was buying, but if everyone else had to have it, then she had to have it too. She didn't even have a computer. But she got sucked into the phenomenon it created.

Certain things in society succeed above other things. It's what they call 'hegemony'....

 

[Mr Sensitive]

why not? it worked for jackson pollock (at least I think so - you may think he was a talentless hack). sure, he was a trained artist and gifted painter, but he deliberately abandoned all his technical ability in favour of raw expression. maybe his stuff is so effective because he retained an artist's eye and sensibilities, but to emulate his work requires no training, no technique.

how's about you try throwing some art on canvas at see how it turns out? you might find you have a gift for it...

In case you don't know, Pollock developed that drip paint technique for years.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

... And Tupac was a 'reader'... not just of literature (jail time) but of people. Objectivity aside, this is simply a great trait for any one in creative arts.

 

[kentshakespeare]

You yourself said it about complexity, etc etc etc.

Shakespeare's musicality is much more varied than Tupac's (Shakespeare had the Italian Renaissance songbook technique in the palm of his hand; the Latin verse of Ovid; popular Elizabethan songs, etc);

His understanding of many different characters and their psychology are unparalleled (the Merchant of Venice, for instance, puts him side by side with other great mind of his time, Michel de Montaigne, who said the Europeans were more savage than the Indians they said savages) and stretch from kings and noblemen to peasants, grave diggers, men and women of all ages, etc. They're all depicted in his plays;

He wrote more than 1 hundred sonnets that only compare with the best of its genre, DAnte Alighieri's, Guido Cavalcanti's, Camoens' and few others;

He simply reinvented drama in his time, after the efforts of both Greene and Marlowe (and I hope you know what it means, to reinvent all that structure and machinery during its most important time and place);

I could continue for pages.

Relativism, I repeat, is for those who can't read with a bit of discernment.

that's all very well. and good on will. I don't mean to diminish his achievements or genius in any way. all I'm saying is that different people will judge different art based on different criteria that have been culturally entrenched but which are by no means objective.

why is complexity considered superior to simplicity? why is elegance better than ugliness? why is mellifluous music more worthy than abrasive music? why are ostentatious displays of verbosity considered better than simple, commonly language? my feeling is that the established hierarchies have their basis in the class system, which deemed the art of the workers somehow inferior to the preferred arts of the upper classes. but I digress.

ultimately, I'm not confident or arrogant enough to believe my taste, judgement and analysis, or indeed that of aesthetes and scholars, conincide with some underlying universal laws of aesthetics.

 

[tonytr1687]

that's all very well. and good on will. I don't mean to diminish his achievements or genius in any way. all I'm saying is that different people will judge different art based on different criteria that have been culturally entrenched but which are by no means objective.

why is complexity considered superior to simplicity? why is elegance better than ugliness? why is mellifluous music more worthy than abrasive music? why are ostentatious displays of verbosity considered better than simple, commonly language? my feeling is that the established hierarchies have their basis in the class system, which deemed the art of the workers somehow inferior to the preferred arts of the upper classes. but I digress.

ultimately, I'm not confident or arrogant enough to believe my taste, judgement and analysis, or indeed that of aesthetes and scholars, conincide with some underlying universal laws of aesthetics.

What in the world are you all talking about?

 

[SilentType]

that's all very well. and good on will. I don't mean to diminish his achievements or genius in any way. all I'm saying is that different people will judge different art based on different criteria that have been culturally entrenched but which are by no means objective.

why is complexity considered superior to simplicity? why is elegance better than ugliness? why is mellifluous music more worthy than abrasive music? why are ostentatious displays of verbosity considered better than simple, commonly language? my feeling is that the established hierarchies have their basis in the class system, which deemed the art of the workers somehow inferior to the preferred arts of the upper classes. but I digress.

ultimately, I'm not confident or arrogant enough to believe my taste, judgement and analysis, or indeed that of aesthetes and scholars, conincide with some underlying universal laws of aesthetics.

I like you...

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

What in the world are you all talking about?

He died and came back as a Thesaurus.

 

[kentshakespeare]

In case you don't know, Pollock developed that drip paint technique for years.

indeed. what he was refining were his ideas of how the finished piece should appear, and how best to achieve that, but as a techique it bears little relation, in terms of base levels of skill, to traditional draughtsmanship or artistry. the essential point stands - it's paint, thrown at a canvas, with no regard for preconceived ideas of 'correct' artistic method, and yet it works. its success is essentially due to pollock's personality, willingness to experiment and aesthetic sense, rather than a high level of technical skill.

 

[kentshakespeare]

I like you...

thanks. fancy a pint?

 

[Mr Sensitive]

that's all very well. and good on will. I don't mean to diminish his achievements or genius in any way. all I'm saying is that different people will judge different art based on different criteria that have been culturally entrenched but which are by no means objective.

why is complexity considered superior to simplicity? why is elegance better than ugliness? why is mellifluous music more worthy than abrasive music? why are ostentatious displays of verbosity considered better than simple, commonly language? my feeling is that the established hierarchies have their basis in the class system, which deemed the art of the workers somehow inferior to the preferred arts of the upper classes. but I digress.

ultimately, I'm not confident or arrogant enough to believe my taste, judgement and analysis, or indeed that of aesthetes and scholars, conincide with some underlying universal laws of aesthetics.

I understand what you are talking about, but, believe me, it is not that.

Dante had this “abrasive music”. Read his Rime Pietrose. That’s not mellifluous at all, and one of the most carefully thought music in words ever written.

Cultural relativism just states (with some marxist misinterpretation) that class thing. But they are wrong. Walt Whitman wasn’t noble, nor rich. One of the best poets nowadays is not that white European cliché, but black, born in St. Lucia island, and received the Nobel for his astonishing work in the epic poem Omeros: Derek Walcott.

Shakespeare is very verbose: “But look, the morn, in russet mantle clad”. That’s verbosity. He coould have written: “Hey, fellas, it’s day already”.

But common language is great when you have a writer like Burroughs in the Naked Lunch.

The case is not elegance X ugliness. The case is: what is the best of that particular thing (beautiful, ugly, whatever)? And how can I know that?

 

[JokerNick]

I am now officailly cross-eyed, way to confuse the hell out of me guys

 

[kytrigger]

he's saying these things, because BB is a DC movie, and it's made by WB, so of course he will critize it, LOTR has nothing to do with X-Men, LOTR is done as far as movies go. he has no competition with them, he's saying these things because of the rumored runtime of X3, he's trying to sell us indirectly on the runtime and rip on a competing franchise.......

I don't think he is just saying that because it's a DC movie, if that were the case he would be bashing Superman Returns instead of stating how excited he is for it and how he constantly tried to get spoilers out of Marsden about what happens.

As far as too many villians, I think he isn't referring to the actual number of villians, but that they weren't as directly connected to each other. You had Earle who was "fighting" Bruce Wayne, Ra's who was fighting Batman, Scarecrow who was with Ra's and then went eveen more insane and ended up wandering and fighting Katie Holmes, Falcone fought Batman and connected a little bit to Ra's, but tapered off and just went insane, and Flass who fought Batman and Gordon respectively. X-Men has more villians, but they are mainly all there for the same purpose, they are apart of Magneto's army. Phoenix may be the second "villian" if you think this way (depending on how the story goes).

As for cutting BB down, I don't agree because he is my favorite superhero and it was my favorite SH movie of all time. That being said, I do know some people that felt the 3rd act dragged a bit. I don't think it was too long, but I think that the beginning was just very quickly paced. The first act where his parents die and he gets trained by the League of Shadows is VERY quick (IMO). I know it's because it is 45 minutes to basically tell over 20 years of his life, while the other acts only cover a few days in his life, but even still, when I first saw it I noticed the difference in pacing. If I were to change anything though, I would have added a scene or two to the first act to slow it down a bit rather than cut time from the 3rd act.

As for LOTR, I thought the first two movies were paced fine, and while long, it was easy to sit through them. I thought the third film had definate time problems though (although that could just be because I felt it was by far the weakest of the three films).

 

[Mr Sensitive]

indeed. what he was refining were his ideas of how the finished piece should appear, and how best to achieve that, but as a techique it bears little relation, in terms of base levels of skill, to traditional draughtsmanship or artistry. the essential point stands - it's paint, thrown at a canvas, with no regard for preconceived ideas of 'correct' artistic method, and yet it works. its success is essentially due to pollock's personality, willingness to experiment and aesthetic sense, rather than a high level of technical skill.

I wasn't talking about "correctness". I was saying that we can evaluate art, we can know who's best in what one does, and that art (any art) is conceived through the mastery of a technique.

Ezra Pound once wrote something like "technique is the proof of sincerity". He was damm right.

 

[bluewolv]

You know the more Kinberg talks the more I think he is just plain full of crap...coming from someone who's writing claim to fame is Mr and Mrs Smith, he should wish to write a screenplay as good as Batman Begins, or X-men United or either Spiderman movie for that matter...At least Zak Penn did co-write X-men United and also Suspect Zero.