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

[Mr Sensitive]

Well,

I like long, slow scenes. These characters could sit down a bit, and have a nice little chat. We could see a bit more of them, talking everyday stuff.

They could explore Beast's doubts, for instance.

He could have a good scene in which he would speak of that tough decision: remain with the appearence of a mutant beast, or become physically equal to a common homo sapiens?

The camera has to relax a tad more, I think. It's been too nervous.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well,

I like long, slow scenes. These characters could sit down a bit, and have a nice little chat. We could see a bit more of them, talking everyday stuff.

They could explore Beast's doubts, for instance.

He could have a good scene in which he would speak of that tough decision: remain with the appearence of a mutant beast, or become physically equal to a common homo sapiens?

The camera has to relax a tad more, I think. It's been too nervous.

Agreed. But everyone--from the writers, to the producers, to the actors, to the director--has said that this film is heavy on dialogue. The action has been stepped up, but the character development is still the biggest slice of the pie.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Agreed. But everyone--from the writers, to the producers, to the actors, to the director--has said that this film is heavy on dialogue. The action has been stepped up, but the character development is still the biggest slice of the pie.

Thats a more better answer than I could think of (thought I could have said exactly that). Thanks LS.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Angel and Beast will get character development similiar to that of Nightcrawler. We have been given no indication that Callisto, Juggs, Worthington Sr., or the President (for crying out loud--what?) will be anything more than supporting characters.

I'm not sure why this concept is lost on some of you people. Believe it or not but BB is not the only CBM that people thought had slow spots. Many of my friends thought that Hulk was slow and sluggish in certain parts of the film. But like BB, it dragged the most at the beginning because a foundation needed to be (re)laid.

Well, i am a big, big fan of the Hulk movie, and even i admit that the Hulk could have been trimmed down. BB on the other hand didnt need to be even in the slightest IMO.

And while Callisto, Juggernaut et al will be supporting characters, they still need some foundation laid down, like their powers, and reasons for joining Magneto.

 

[thegameq]

Fox is basically trying to cover their ass. I suspect the "official" runtime won't be that big a difference from what Cannes announced. Either way, it's basically a short movie.

In an attempt to be objective and fair....

Reading some of the stuff that's been posted about this movies pacing and intentions have me somewhat perplexed. On one hand they are saying the film will be very dialogue driven and emotional, which would lead me to believe there should many great character driven scenes. On the other hand the whole "it's war theme", and the fast paced cliche keeps coming up. Is the first half a dialogue-fest building up to a climactic confrontation with the Brotherhood (the money shot) in the second half? Taking into account the stated fact that they will not be doing a refresher course on the existing characters and the lenght of the film, I suppose it could work--but it would all seem superficial. Factor in the enormity of the Dark Phoenix Saga and the Cure story lines....how much time are they dedicating to either? The cure will no doubt be the crux of the story an I suspect the "Saga" will get a huge trimming...unless the Saga continues in an X4.....?

I just have a hard time understanding how they plan to make this movie epic (LOTR) in such a short timeframe. Perhaps they meant t will feel epic because the events leading up to X3 have been building since X1? Maybe we will see that the war will be not just on the American front but global as well--although I don't see why American policies towards mutants in America would spark war in other countries. Yes, yes, I know many foreign countries take their cues from the U.S., but a war based on a societal indifference? Perhaps the cure will not be the cause of the war, but infact the death or assasination of a prominent figure in the mutant civil rights movement, Prof. X. Maybe there will be some tragic event that will cause both sides to blame the other. From there we would see a rapid escalation of hostilities between the two sides, with the X-men in the middle. A rapid snowball effect that would explain the film's pace and length.



Well, at least I tried.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Agreed. But everyone--from the writers, to the producers, to the actors, to the director--has said that this film is heavy on dialogue. The action has been stepped up, but the character development is still the biggest slice of the pie.

That's what I'm hoping for, Lightning.
And a longer than 103 min.running time, aussi, bien entendu.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, LS considering the run-time we are only getting two action scenes by the sounds of it. If the movie is diologue heavy they wont have time for the action that needs to be seen.

 

[BMM]

I agree that for the most part, if you're going to see the third film of a trilogy, you should have some pre-existing knowledge of the characters and a general idea of what the movies are about . . . that being said, there will no doubt need to be a fair amount of foundation laid. Angel and Beast will need to be explained (which will tie into the cure arc), the current administration as well as the rest of the world's current stance on mutants should be given mention, and Jean's return must be explained to an extent, etc.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, LS considering the run-time we are only getting two action scenes by the sounds of it. If the movie is diologue heavy they wont have time for the action that needs to be seen.

What run-time are we getting? Even the publicists at FOX haven't been updated on this detail yet as the film is still being cut. And Cannes guestimated so as to have something in place for their programming.

Do you know something I don't?

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I agree that for the most part, if you're going to see the third film of a trilogy, you should have some pre-existing knowledge of the characters and a general idea of what the movies are about . . . that being said, there will no doubt need to be a fair amount of foundation laid. Angel and Beast will need to be explained (which will tie into the cure arc), the current administration as well as the rest of the world's current stance on mutants should be given mention, and Jean's return must be explained to an extent, etc.

Its been said numerous times that this is Jean's movie. So I'm not worried about less screen time of her character b/c she plays a bigger role in both storylines.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What run-time are we getting? Even the publicists at FOX haven't been updated on this detail yet as the film is still being cut. And Cannes guestimated so as to have something in place for their programming.

Do you know something I don't?

Ha ha wish i did LS, but Kinberg did say that the final running time will be close to the Cannes announcement of 103 mins, so i can see no more than a few mins being added, possible even shaved off!!!!

 

[X-Maniac]

Isn't this thread a little overcooked now?

 

[Angry Sentinel]

you're thinking of the Ricky Hoggard thread

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Isn't this thread a little overcooked now?

Yes.

But I'm leaving it open so that those who...ahem...need to read it can get get a good pulse of what the fans think of this rumor.

Has someone started a thread on this at Brett's official site?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I too thought that BB was slow in some areas, and much of that 30 minutes he's referring to was spent on building a foundation for the main character via origin stories, etc. Such won't be necessary for X3.

But it was necessary for Batman Begins. That's the point.

I don't think the major argument is comparing BB and X3; it's the troubling notion that a professional screenwriter and self-professed comicbook nut who's been entrusted with the third installment of a carefully crafted series thinks 30+ minutes could be taken out of Batman Begins without it suffering. If anything, that was a film that had so much to do that it could've been longer, particularly in fleshing out his training. It's a lean pic; there isn't a wasted scene in it.

Is that an opinion he has the right to? Sure, go 'head. But it's not a very reassuring one to hear, for people who already question the way he and the others go about things, particularly in this "short attention span" argument. It furthers people's belief that X3 isn't short because the story, the pace, calls for it; but that it's short simply because those in charge feel that any movie benefits from being shorter. And that isn't always the case; hell it usually isn't; if the story being told is strong and engaging.

 

[KenK]

But it was necessary for Batman Begins. That's the point.

I don't think the major argument is comparing BB and X3; it's the troubling notion that a professional screenwriter and self-professed comicbook nut who's been entrusted with the third installment of a carefully crafted series thinks 30+ minutes could be taken out of Batman Begins without it suffering. If anything, that was a film that had so much to do that it could've been longer, particularly in fleshing out his training. It's a lean pic; there isn't a wasted scene in it.

The complete removal of Katie Holmes' character would have made the film shorter, and I believe, better. Don't get me wrong, I love BB, but her character was ultimately superfluous. Alfred could have driven Bruce to the Chill hearing AND given him the vengeance vs. justice speech. Not to mention the whole "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." crap. Her character SAYS most of what we were SHOWN over the course of the film, making her character ultimately redundant. The scene with him investigating the apartment in the Narrows could have led to evidence that later too him to Arkham, again, meaning no need for Rachel, as his motive for going there seems more about protecting her than catching Crane. To say nothing of the fact that he could have carried the innoculation for the fear toxin when he went to Arkham, as Batman is one of those characters that thrives on contingency (OMAC Project anyone). Gives the innoculation to Gordon there, instead of Rachel giving it to him in the Narrows near the end of the film.

I'd say that shaves at least twenty minutes off the film and still tells the story that was presented, but such is Hollywood, the hero has to have a love interest.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'd say that shaves at least twenty minutes off the film and still tells the story that was presented, but such is Hollywood, the hero has to have a love interest.

Well, otherwise there'd be all kinds of uncomfortable questions about Robin...

On topic, Kinberg may've said the film will run 'close to' the Cannes 103 minutes, but, last time I checked, 'close to' is not much a quantative answer.

133 minutes is pretty close to 103, in my opinion. I guess only time will tell...

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

The complete removal of Katie Holmes' character would have made the film shorter, and I believe, better. Don't get me wrong, I love BB, but her character was ultimately superfluous. Alfred could have driven Bruce to the Chill hearing AND given him the vengeance vs. justice speech. Not to mention the whole "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." crap. Her character SAYS most of what we were SHOWN over the course of the film, making her character ultimately redundant. The scene with him investigating the apartment in the Narrows could have led to evidence that later too him to Arkham, again, meaning no need for Rachel, as his motive for going there seems more about protecting her than catching Crane. To say nothing of the fact that he could have carried the innoculation for the fear toxin when he went to Arkham, as Batman is one of those characters that thrives on contingency (OMAC Project anyone). Gives the innoculation to Gordon there, instead of Rachel giving it to him in the Narrows near the end of the film.

I'd say that shaves at least twenty minutes off the film and still tells the story that was presented, but such is Hollywood, the hero has to have a love interest.

The character of Rachel is the film's weak point, but I don't think that accounts for 30+ minutes that could've gone. The "love interest" is a given, unfortunately, but I think Goyer and Nolan did the best they could to integrate her into the plot so that it didn't seem like a waste of time. If her character had been cut, it would've most likely been replaced with Harvey Dent and more Alfred, plus your token girlfriend, which, while better and more fitted to the comics, would've eaten up even more time. Rachel was a way to blend all of that together.

 

[SilentType]

FieryBalrog, carissimo,
I agree with virtually everything you said.

In the example of poetry, you are totally right: you can measure it through the variety of the technique; Dante's terza rima, a very complicated rhyme scheme to be used in such a vast poem as the Divine Comedy, for instance, draws attention to one specific (and never surpassed) craftmanship in poetry.

In music, as well: Mozart could go from Bach to the principles of Beethoven and leave his own mark. Although I like very much the Sex Pistols, it's quite obvious that Mozart's music is far better. He knew, I suppose, more than three chords.

What makes yours the "correct" method of judging art? Who decided on this method?
Art is not a fundamental law of nature. I can say “clouds are made from water vapor” because clouds are, in fact made from water vapor. If you believe that clouds are made from asbestos and silly string, it does not change the fact that clouds are made from water vapor. No man has to believe that clouds are made of water vapor for it to be true.
Art on the other hand is a human institution. It is not defined by any kind of natural laws. So who made the decision as to what criteria you judge art by? Was there a panel? A summit? A braintrust? Where did these laws come from?

 

[FieryBalrog]

What makes yours the "correct" method of judging art? Who decided on this method?
Art is not a fundamental law of nature. I can say “clouds are made from water vapor” because clouds are, in fact made from water vapor. If you believe that clouds are made from asbestos and silly string, it does not change the fact that clouds are made from water vapor. No man has to believe that clouds are made of water vapor for it to be true.

And why is that? What if an alien came to earth, and deduced from the reality of ITS experience, that clouds are not composed of water vapor, but are in fact spirit-pillows that hang in the firmament? Again, people assume that observers are going to agree about the nature of physical reality, but that isnt the case.

Human beings might agree on the nature of reality because we all look at reality the same way, with our five senses, our instruments and our particular thinking patterns, which include concepts we call "logic" and "reason".

Art on the other hand is a human institution.

So is science.

It is not defined by any kind of natural laws. So who made the decision as to what criteria you judge art by? Was there a panel? A summit? A braintrust? Where did these laws come from?

The laws of aesthetics come from the same place that the laws of reason which we use to discover the physical world come from: our evolutionary history.

 

[PhoenixFire]

And why is that? What if an alien came to earth, and deduced from the reality of ITS experience, that clouds are not composed of water vapor, but are in fact spirit-pillows that hang in the firmament? Again, people assume that observers are going to agree about the nature of physical reality, but that isnt the case.

Human beings might agree on the nature of reality because we all look at reality the same way, with our five senses, our instruments and our particular thinking patterns, which include concepts we call "logic" and "reason".



So is science.



The laws of aesthetics come from the same place that the laws of reason which we use to discover the physical world come from: our evolutionary history.

How we discover beauty isn't that different from how we discover truth.

I am mystified as to why we are arguing Mozart v. the Sex Pistols on a thread about the length of X3 but the "laws of aesthetics" aren't exactly what I'd consider the "laws of art."

Art is not aesthetics, things do not ahve to be pretty to be art, they need to have relevance and convey a message.

While I'm not going to weigh in on how I feel about the Sex Pistols their particular level of artistry is entirely up for debate, as is that of Mozart.

Art is meant to provoke a dialogue, not exist in a vacuum, to say that something is patently 'good art' whilst another is expressly not is rather obtuse.

 

[SilentType]

And why is that? What if an alien came to earth, and deduced from the reality of ITS experience, that clouds are not composed of water vapor, but are in fact spirit-pillows that hang in the firmament? Again, people assume that observers are going to agree about the nature of physical reality, but that isnt the case.

Human beings might agree on the nature of reality because we all look at reality the same way, with our five senses, our instruments and our particular thinking patterns, which include concepts we call "logic" and "reason".



So is science.



The laws of aesthetics come from the same place that the laws of reason which we use to discover the physical world come from: our evolutionary history.

Are you saying there is a logical argument for clouds being made out of silly string? That is where I'm going to have to wash my hands of this debate. Perhaps I'll go play with my unicorn under my rainbow tree.

 

[tonytr1687]

It's said only 30 seconds were cut from the movie. What's the point in hiding the fact more than that was cut?

Anyways, they trusted Ratner with $200 million. If they have that big of a trust in him, Fox doesn't need to do any kind of editing to this movie.

I'm not trying to bash Ratner in any way, but Fox also trusted Tim Story with F4 after the "masterpeice" that was Taxi. Fox isn't always a good judge of talent.

 

[X-Maniac]

Taking into account the stated fact that they will not be doing a refresher course on the existing characters....

That aspect does worry me. It's two years since the last movie. X2 was criticised by the mainstream (I recall the BBC's review particularly) for relying on too much assumed knowledge of a movie that was four years earlier.

The gap between X2 and X3 is less..but still. On the one hand, this is a trilogy with a letter '3' in it, so audiences should be wise enough to realise they need to remember some of X1 and X2. But on the other hand, people aren't that intellectual about these things, they will expect the film to stand on its own merits without re-watching/buying the previous two movies.

Simon said the movie was made primarily for fans who knew the material, and thus it dives quickly into action, using the DR scene as a sort of reminder of the various mutant powers... but they need to attract mainstream viewers as well as fans.

I hope the marketing and publicity helps to remind people of X1 and X2 and the flow of the storyline. I think Brett's idea of using the DR scene to remind people of the powers was brilliant and I hope it will be sufficient.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

It would explain why the US cable stations have been playing X2 like it won 7 academy awards. Maybe they are relying on this as their sole means of re-treding.