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

[JokerNick]

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).

thanks for talking about SH man...... not other sutff

 

[kytrigger]

thanks for talking about SH man...... not other sutff

hahaha...well, I'm not discussing the other stuff because I don't know nearly enough about art. The best I could bring to that discussion would be telling them that the Crayola box of 200 crayons with the sharpener on the side was the greatest invention ever.

 

[JokerNick]

hahaha...well, I'm not discussing the other stuff because I don't know nearly enough about art. The best I could bring to that discussion would be telling them that the Crayola box of 200 crayons with the sharpener on the side was the greatest invention ever.

lol..... yeah I took a few classes on art, it was fun and educational, but I'm just not that much into it, I know what I like, and that's what I go by, and that monet painted flowers that looked like........ yeah, ain't gonna go there...........

 

[RagingTempest]

Did anyone read this article today?

Source: 20th Century Fox
April 25, 2006

We previously reported that the Cannes Film Festival, where X-Men: The Last Stand is screening out of competition, had listed a running time of 1 hour and 43 minutes for the third film.

As we expected, this was simply a guess by the festival because 20th Century Fox couldn't confirm the true length of the film in time for their schedule to be published. As of today, no running time has been locked in yet, so stay tuned.

X-Men was 104 minutes and X2: X-Men United ran 133 minutes.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Yeah that was stupid if Cannes just made up a running time.

 

[kentshakespeare]

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

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?
...
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.

back on track...

elegance v. ugliness is not the point, it's just an illustrative example (although it is the norm - of course there are going to be numerous exceptions, but most western art that has reached a high level of recognition is considered beautiful, elegant, etc). you ask "what is the best of that particular thing? And how can I know that?", but provide no answer. how can you know that? you've yet to determine a) what the criteria are for judging the intrinsic worth of something and b) how you can verify these criteria are objective.

by the by, art made by working class people is not necessarily the same thing as working class art. what I'm saying is that a certain group of people, be that the upper classes, those in academia or a bunch of estate agents in durban or whoever, decides upon the qualifying criteria and has the power and influence to introduce those ideas into accepted critical thinking - but these ideas do not and cannot, except by fortuitous accident, reflect a higher state of objective reality. if the criteria for great art are not set or decided by man, then where do they come from? god?

we can certainly evaluate art, and I'd be the first to argue to the death for the eternal, indisputable and infinite artistic merits of coltrane or kliban or kurosawa, but all that evaluation achieves is a measured assessment of our own perceptions and prejudices (and a nice way to pass an evening in the pub).

the thing that worries me about all this is that, if you are correct, then there's absolutely no point in spending an evening arguing about books and films and music, because the worth of any piece can be proven logically and scientifically and given a definitive score out of 100. indeed, we can pre-design great art by committee, because we know how it's made.

art just doesn't work that way. it's not a science. it works inside us, in the spaces between what we feel, the beliefs we have and what we fail to understand about the world and ourselves. I suppose what I'm trying to say, badly, is that art at its best affects us in indefinable ways, and therefore is beyond measurement or complete rational assessment. have you ever had an artistic epiphany? been overwhelmed by the power of a piece of music or a picture, while your friend stands there, bored out of his mind? or vice versa? is that because the other person is wrong and ignorant and 'doesn't get it', or perhaps because they're a different person, and what affects you deeply may be inconsequential to them?

anyway, what was this thread about again? oh yes. 103 minutes. bound to be a bag of toss, then...

 

[FreeRadical]

Kinberg isn't helping his case by saying Batman Begins should have been shortened by friggin' 35 minutes. Every single scene in that movie was needed to propel the plot, to develop the characters, and to immerse the viewer in an epic story spanning several years. I fear X3's fate more than ever after his recent comments.

Whoa! What is Kinberg doing near the X-men franchise? I came out after watching Batman Begins and X2 satified, like if I had a three-course meal. But it depends because some films can convey a sense of being a epic with a short running time, but the only examples I can think of are animated films like Disney and Dreamworks which last under 90 mins. Certain films can work in a short time span like Men in Black.

They started playing the tv spots in the UK, and X3 is coming a day early in the UK (May 25th)

 

[citizenpain]

and now it turns out the 103 running time isn't even confirmed. ha! you guys got sooo excited about this, much like every other tidbit and rumor that slips through the cracks. sure, i want the movie to be a decent lenght cuz it's supposta be epic, but i don't want a 3 and a half hour marathon either. i never got into harry potter and lord of the rings cuz i always thought they were sooooo friggin long... just about two hours, two and a half at max is plenty for a great movie.

 

[The Batman]

I simply had to laugh regarding kinberg's thoughts on bb's run time....Let's see, BB was around 139 minutes....he wouldve wanted BB to be a 105 minute movie? LMAO...

 

[Sun_Down]

Even though the running time isn't confirmed, it's still gonna be about 103-105 minutes. Let's not get our hopes up about this thing being any longer or shorter than that. We're literally talking about a couple minutes here.

 

[TheVileOne]

Someone should tell Simon Kinberg that XXX2 should've been shorter than the actual trailer than the movie.

 

[Psionic Force]

You all saw this right ... on the main page of SHH!

X-Men Running Time Not Locked in Yet
Source: 20th Century Fox April 25, 2006

We previously reported that the Cannes Film Festival, where X-Men: The Last Stand is screening out of competition, had listed a running time of 1 hour and 43 minutes for the third film.

As we expected, this was simply a guess by the festival because 20th Century Fox couldn't confirm the true length of the film in time for their schedule to be published. As of today, no running time has been locked in yet, so stay tuned.

X-Men was 104 minutes and X2: X-Men United ran 133 minutes

http://superherohype.com/news/x-mennews.php?id=4132

 

[imaperson2]

wait so its an hour an 43 minutes?

 

[berzerko89]

wow thank god that its not the offical length of the movie.

*jumps for joy*

 

[TheVileOne]

What no one is acknowledging is that the longer movies do BETTER than the shorter ones.

X-2 did better than X-men 1. Batman Begins did better than Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and X-men 1.

Both Spider-man movies which are both over 2 hours did better than all of those as well.

 

[FieryBalrog]

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?

Yes, they are wrong. Just like people who look at a the fossil and record and say "that can be explained by Noah's flood!!!1" are wrong. As are the people who say both "interpretations" are equally valid.

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.

Of course they may prefer Tupac. Factors such as personal experience, relevance, etc. come up there. That is not the same as saying Tupac is a better poet. There is a difference. If you think Tupac is a better poet, you are wrong, just as if you think the Grand Canyon is 5,000 years old, you are wrong. You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, but they are wrong.

In the same way, I may prefer the Hindu myth of the Mahabharata to the actual history of that area of India 2000 years ago. But one is the real history, and the other is just a myth that I like.

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.

Mozart and the Sex Pistols dont work in the same medium, really, but in terms of skill with melody and composition, Mozart is objectively better. As to which you prefer, its up to you.

no it isn't. evolution is true or untrue entirely independent of what people believe.

Why is that? Thats only from your epistemological point of view. What if I have different beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge? - this is me playing Devil's advocate, but its similar to your argument about art.

what matters is how the argument relates to the observable evidence.

But Christian theologians look at the observable evidence and conclude the world is 5,000 years old, that Noah's flood explains the fossil record, and the there is no evidence of an old-earth or evolution. Why are they wrong?

Not to mention, why does observable evidence only pertain to this issue? The analysis of art also makes use of observable evidence. There is just a disagreement about standards, just as there is in scientific disciplines.

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.

Evidence doesnt have to be a DNA strand to be evidence.

And a final point: aesthetic sense isn't arbitrary. Most human beings broadly agree on what we find aesthetically pleasing, just as we broadly agree on what constitutes rational scientific evidence. Kristin Kreuk is objectively more sexually attractive than an old lady in a nursing home, and Van Gogh is objectively a better painter than I am. Evolution has built certain aesthetic senses into us as human beings.

And of course this is all from a strictly human point of view. We are human beings and can't approach things from any other point of view no matter how much we try. Aliens may think old ladies are more attractive. But aliens may also think the theory of evolution is bunk. So, in a sense, reality for us is built through the human mind.

 

[WorthyStevens]

What no one is acknowledging is that the longer movies do BETTER than the shorter ones.

X-2 did better than X-men 1. Batman Begins did better than Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and X-men 1.

Both Spider-man movies which are both over 2 hours did better than all of those as well.

You have a point. But remember, the movies you pointed out were better, were better quality than the ones you compared them to.

X2 was in better quality than X1. BB was in better quality than both F4, Daredevil and X1.

The runtime doesn't determine how good the movie is. It's the quality that determines how good the movie is.

 

[FieryBalrog]

wow thank god that its not the offical length of the movie.

*jumps for joy*

Kinberg confirmed that 103 minutes is approximately the final length. Its not going to be any huge deviation from that.

 

[FieryBalrog]

The runtime doesn't determine how good the movie is. It's the quality that determines how good the movie is.

But a longer runtime can allow for better pacing of the plot (thats crucial), better development for scenes, etc. Runtime DOES influence the quality of the movie. Could LOTR have been a great movie while retaining anything from the books if it was made into a 60 minute TV special?

 

[WorthyStevens]

Kinberg confirmed that 103 minutes is approximately the final length. Its not going to be any huge deviation from that.

Right, but atleast 5-10 minutes longer than estimated isn't out of the question.

 

[TheVileOne]

You have a point. But remember, the movies you pointed out were better, were better quality than the ones you compared them to.

But they were LONGER MOVIES. Which goes against the perception that audiences can't sit through longer movies and enjoy them. And that they have SHORT attention spans. That didn't stop 2 and a half or 3 hour plus movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia to be huge though.

X2 was in better quality than X1. BB was in better quality than both F4, Daredevil and X1.

Movies like Fantastic Four and Daredevil were cut or made SHORTER because they are for the "KIDS" or so they MOVE FASTER! FAST PACED! QUICK LIKE A BULLET TRAIN! I say bull**** to that perception.

The runtime doesn't determine how good the movie is. It's the quality that determines how good the movie is.

The length of the story and the quality go together. The length of Batman Begins is exactly what Nolan and Goyer envisioned and wrote it to be.

 

[WorthyStevens]

But a longer runtime can allow for better pacing of the plot (thats crucial), better development for scenes, etc. Runtime DOES influence the quality of the movie. Could LOTR have been a great movie while retaining anything from the books if it was made into a 60 minute TV special?

Not really. A movie doesn't have to be paced as slowly as LOTR or X2 to be a great movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

Not really. A movie doesn't have to be paced as slowly as LOTR or X2 to be a great movie.

They weren't slow-paced movies though. X2 had a good pace to me it never felt slow at all.

Honestly if you are engaged with the characters and the story pacing shouldn't matter at all. But X-2 never felt what I would call slow.

It's like saying Raiders of the Lost Ark was a SLOW movie.

 

[berzerko89]

dont mind about the length... at least we get to see an x-men 3 ryt?

 

[WorthyStevens]

But they were LONGER MOVIES. Which goes against the perception that audiences can't sit through longer movies and enjoy them. And that they have SHORT attention spans. That didn't stop 2 and a half or 3 hour plus movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia to be huge though.

You don't think anyone involved with the movie knows that? I doubt anyone with half a brain couldn't realize that a movie longer than 2 hours could make that much money.

Movies like Fantastic Four and Daredevil were cut or made SHORTER because they are for the "KIDS" or so they MOVE FASTER! FAST PACED! QUICK LIKE A BULLET TRAIN! I say bull**** to that perception.

Fox was behind the cutting.

The length of the story and the quality go together. The length of Batman Begins is exactly what Nolan and Goyer envisioned and wrote it to be.

I will agree with you. I loved Batman Begins and didn't mind the pace one bit, but some movies don't need that much time to develop the story. Obviously, if the running time is true, it seems that the makers have found a way to make this movie as best as possible if they're not going to make it 2+ hours.