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

[Psionic Force]

Why is this discussion still going on about that time when it has been confirmed that the exact time has not been locked in?

 

[FieryBalrog]

Fox was behind the cutting.

and what studio is in charge of this movie?

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

fox...

 

[WorthyStevens]

and what studio is in charge of this movie?

It's been said repeatedly that Fox has NOTHING to do with any kind of cut or edit from this movie...

 

[chaseter]

Why is this discussion still going on about that time when it has been confirmed that the exact time has not been locked in?

Beacause it will be about the same time as the rumored time. They wouldn't say 103 mins and then suddenly Fox adds in 40 more mins and it becomes 143. 103 mins is most likely an accurate guess.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

It's been said repeatedly that Fox has NOTHING to do with any kind of cut or edit from this movie...

ignore the post...i posted. I wasn't thinking -hungs head in shame-

 

[WorthyStevens]

ignore the post...i posted. I wasn't thinking -hungs head in shame-

That was meant for Fiery, actually.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

oh okay..


well g2g. nighty night.

 

[FieryBalrog]

It's been said repeatedly that Fox has NOTHING to do with any kind of cut or edit from this movie...

What are they going to say? Yea we cut down the movie to 95 minutes to mess things up?

And before anyone jumps on me about the non-confirmation,

I’m not entirely sure of the final FINAL running time, but it will indeed be around the announced time.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Beacause it will be about the same time as the rumored time. They wouldn't say 103 mins and then suddenly Fox adds in 40 more mins and it becomes 143. 103 mins is most likely an accurate guess.

And films at Cannes are listed with credit times included. Thats pretty much my only hope right now, that when they made a "guess" or whatever they didnt include credit time, although they probably did. So its not 103 minutes, its ~95 minutes. 103 isn't great news, 95 is just awful.

 

[zer00]

It's been said repeatedly that Fox has NOTHING to do with any kind of cut or edit from this movie...

Yeah and my ass is made out of cheese.

 

[pt_photo_inc]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Why do they keep doing this to us?????????? first 103 minutes, then rumors that it was confirmed by some fox person from some fan on this site... now it is just rumor because they did not turn in the time so they guessed! OH WHY OH WHY ARE THE FLUCKING WITH THE FANS!!!!!!!!

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

If I like the Movie & highly enjoy it thats all that matters. If not then go to hell FOX
​

 

[TheVileOne]

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.

I dunno, Kinberg and Ratner don't seem to know it. Fox doesn't either.

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.

Once again when they compare this movie to being the Return of The King of the X-men and being bigger than X-men 1 and X2 I really find that hard to believe.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Well I am still disappointed because EVEN if the time is wrong Kinberg seems certain it won't even break the 2 hour mark. I am still being kind of optimistic...hoping that the movie still delivers. It is just so hard for me to personally envision a movie with all of these characters and etc. in that timeframe. Hopefully I will be proven wrong and the movie gets the job done.

 

[Sunstar]

I was bit relieved to find out that Cannes only guessed the running time but I still fear it might be close to 103mins!

 

[sp1derg1rl]

i'll just have to watch it more to make up for it not being as long.

 

[pt_photo_inc]

Yeah and my ass is made out of cheese.

all i have to say is... DAREDEVIL... it WAS FOX that really ****ed up that movie! They editing really took it from a 6 to a 2!

 

[pt_photo_inc]

not always... thats like saying arguing about evolution is pointless becuase no one's right, no one's wrong...

you are comparing EVOLUTION to a sunset and sunrise?

 

[pt_photo_inc]

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.

you know what infuriates me about this.... from CATWOMAN to any other piece of **** to hit the fan called cinema, there is just sooo many better people out there for the job! why do we have these ass holes in hollywood doing the work of more talented no bodies? Cant hollywood stop promoting thier high school friends to directors? For all we know we might be walking into CATWOMAN: THE LAST STAND! they dont care about us. They dont care about the movie... they care about money. And they know (Just like the producers) that no matter what they do, they have made thier money on X3! Have you see any flyers for it? I live in dallas... where we have movie BILL BOARDS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!

I have seen 20 for THE DIVINCHI CODE, which....correct me if i am wrong, but cost less to make... and nothing on X3... Why? Cause they know that everyone of us will see it opening day! everyone of us!

 

[pt_photo_inc]

WOW, Kinberd is mad at Batman's succses, If BB failed, SR wouldn't be as anticipated............

my top 5 Comic book movies

1. Batman Begins
2. X2
3. Superman the movie
4. Spider-Man
5. Blade

well i just wanted my 5 in now:
1. X2- Xmen United... the one true xmen movie!
2. Batman Begins
3. Spiderman 2
4. Road to Perdition
5. Constantine

 

[pt_photo_inc]

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?

no flame needed.... as much as people want to try to make a point that length is not quality.... i am sorry, it just does NOT HOLD UP!!!!!

a good movie has:
1. too much story to fit in. (much editing to try to get the best part... cause it is soo complex and important to tell)

2. An investment in character developement.

3. it also has an investment in capture. XXX was the worst movie i have ever seen. It didnt need to show the guy who just got shot on the ground coughing blood and holding on to a picture of his daughter as he died (and i know that didnt happen), you know why it didnt need to show that? cause it didnt matter, it was a firework to shoot off in the ass of every americans wallet and that is it. "LOOK AT ME! I AM FAST AND I AM FURIOUS!" A good movie... IE CINDERELLA MAN, takes time to bring the hero back to the bank to pay back his debt with interest to those who havent been as lucky... it takes time to show the scars the family....

just come to terms people... there is a 75% chance that this movie was made to blow a firework up in your ass and out of your pockets!

sorry. i love xmen... but hollywood doesnt love us

now lets see them blame PIRATING for them LOSING MONEY THIS YEAR! HAHAHA! I say we all find a way of getting this early and not seeing it in theaters!!!!! HAHAHAHA! (NOT REALLY SUGGESTING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY)

yes but those ****ers will be like "Pirating is hurting us... it isnt the 197 remakes of old movies we did this year starring will ferrel or ben stiller!"

 

[pt_photo_inc]

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.

GOD I would love to see my girl come on here... she is an ANTHROPOLOGY major and would love to debate this! but i will just tell you what she would say... stop talking about what you are talking about and try to convince each other what the BEST CD OF ALL TIME IS! Once you both agree then science and life as we know it will cease to exsist!!!!!!!

 

[pt_photo_inc]

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

kindly and jokingly as possible.... ****

 

[kentshakespeare]

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.

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.

see, you kep saying this. "wrong. yes, they're wrong", without anything of substance to back it up. why. are they. 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.

not the same thing.

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.

they both work in music. how closely related do two artists have to be to be judged against each other in your vague, mysterious system? same genre? same instruments? same scales and tempo? maybe the same song. maybe the only definitive judgement to be made is between bobby darin and frank sinatra's versions of 'mack the knife'.

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.

okay, let's play. you be popper and I'll be feyerabend. but it's not about method or knowledge. it's about what that knowledge fundamentally purports to represent. scientific knowledge is a way of understanding the physical facts of our existence. aethetic knowledge is about understanding our relationship with the world, which, you must agree, is far less tangible, although both may be equally inaccessible.

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?

maybe they're not. but the point is that they either are or aren't. I don't think you can be "wrong" in art because a set of facts about artistic hierarchy is not there waiting to be deciphered. aesthetic judgements are something we impose upon the world, rather than something we take from it.

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.

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.

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.

reality is certainly built through the human mind. but I'd say you're not just approaching this from a human point of view, but a very western-centric point of view, both in terms of aesthetic values and female attractiveness. is van gogh universally considered a great painter? is kristin kreuk a universal archetype of beauty? no. in the case of van gogh, it is dependent upon taking deriving your sense of standards from the european tradition of painting. in the case of kristin kreuk, we're talking mozart vs the pistols again - the element of old age is not a viable factor, as we are programmed by evolution to, in general, not seek out mates who have undergone the menopause. and for any "attractive" woman of childbearing age, opinion will be massively divided about her beauty, especially across cultures.

except monica bellucci. who is quite clearly god herself.

anyway, nice chatting to you. I disagree with virtually everything you say, but it's been fun.