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

[Angry Sentinel]

rashomon is 88 minutes. waterworld is 176. which is the better film?

to those people who have decided the film is going to be crap based on the running time and the number of elements that need to be incorporated into it - why don't you wait to see the film and how it's put together rather than making wildly uninformed pre-judgements? some people seem to think that long running time = better value for money. what a depressing attitude. it's like visiting an art gallery and complaining the goya prints are too small.

Good point, but were either of those movies sequels? Did they carry the responsibility of furthering an already established plot line and character depictions? One would imagine that it takes time to do these things (or at least to do them well), wouldn't you think?

 

[Mr Sensitive]

rashomon is 88 minutes. waterworld is 176. which is the better film?

to those people who have decided the film is going to be crap based on the running time and the number of elements that need to be incorporated into it - why don't you wait to see the film and how it's put together rather than making wildly uninformed pre-judgements? some people seem to think that long running time = better value for money. what a depressing attitude. it's like visiting an art gallery and complaining the goya prints are too small.

You are right concerning the safest attitude, which is just to wait for the movie, but then again, this wouldn't be a discussion board, and the speculation based on the present information would never happen.

But you are wrong about the comparisons. Goya's prints were intended to be so, and he shows deep mastery of his medium (along Rembrandt's, Dürer's, Grassmann's, etc); this movie encompass a great number of various things and has small running time.

The small form seems not to be adequate for the huge scope, and this is completely different from Goya's example.

 

[LoGaN's RuNNer]

No, he said:



That doesn't make 103 minutes final. And he never said it included credits.

He said its never been clocked, so thats a rought statement.

 

[Maze]

Yeah, but they don't have to present decently Beast, Angel, Kitty, Juggernaut, Trask, etc and make them work smooth in the story;

they don't have to give enough room to Jean coming back to life and its consequences;

they don't have an entire sequence in the Danger Room;

they aren't closing a trilogy that was coming in a crescendo;

they don't have to give enough room to make Magneto establish plausibly his plan and his troops;

they don't have to expand Storm's character;

they don't have to include an epic final battle;

they don't have to manage a dozen important characters from the previous movies and wrap their stories up.

That's the whole problem.

you have simply and perfectly exposed the problem

 

[BMM]

I think most people are just disappointed because they just wanted the movie to be longer just to see the mutants on the screen longer, w/o any regard to the storyline or whatever.

I'm w/ TNC, I'm not disappointed at this runtime. It's one minute less then the first one, and that one was awesome. I'll be a smart person and reserve my thoughts until after I've seen the movie.

I agree with you about reserving thoughts until after having seen the movie . . . but my concern is just the opposite regarding the first part of your post.

I'm not disappointed simply because I want more mutants on screen regardless of the plot . . . I'm concerned because I'm unsure storylines such as the cure, the Dark Phoenix saga, and the finale of an epic "war" will be done with proper regard within the alotted time frame . . . but we'll see. It will be here before we know it.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

I'm not necessarily dissapointed but it doesn't sound very good. Sequels have to extend and sustain the existing storyline (and in this case bring an end to one). The first movie just needed to establish one. I suppose it's not impossible to do that within 103 minutes, but sure sounds easier if you were to take more time.

 

[kentshakespeare]

But you are wrong about the comparisons. Goya's prints were intended to be so, and he shows deep mastery of his medium (along Rembrandt's, Dürer's, Grassmann's, etc); this movie encompass a great number of various things and has small running time.

agreed, it was a facile comparison, but the point still stands - that size is no indicator of quality. the impression I get from this thread and others like it (and indeed, from the post directly above mine) is that people think there are too many elements to be squeezed into 103 minutes, almost as if each element (introducing kitty and beast, the danger room, talking about the cure, magento's plan, phoenix, and all the rest of it) will happen be slotted in one after another in a modular, clearly delineated fashion.

any scriptwriter worthy of being paid for the job will hopefully be weaving these elements together so that the story makes narrative sense and moves along at a decent pace. so for example, the danger room sequence may serve to establish peter and kitty, the cure will be tied in with introducing beast and angel, events surronding the return of phoenix will directly tie in to storm's character developments, etc, etc and their characters will be part of the story rather than extraneous elements. a decent writer and director, working in conjunction, can easily incorporate all the story's elements into 103 minutes.

nonetheless, I appreciate it's a discussion forum, but I just feel sometimes people are overly and unjustly negative...perhaps because it's more fun, which is undeniable.

 

[Downhere]

(sigh!) and that's ok. i'm sure many many people 'like' it, but it's not Great! It's not Spectacular. You don't Love It.

Hey, I loved the Family Man. In my humble opinion I thought it was a good to great film and is one of my favorite movies to watch during the holiday season.

 

[SilentType]

size is no indicator of quality. the impression I get from this thread and others like it (and indeed, from the post directly above mine) is that people think there are too many elements to be squeezed into 103 minutes, almost as if each element (introducing kitty and beast, the danger room, talking about the cure, magento's plan, phoenix, and all the rest of it) will happen be slotted in one after another in a modular, clearly delineated fashion.



any scriptwriter worthy of being paid for the job will hopefully be weaving these elements together so that the story makes narrative sense and moves along at a decent pace. so for example, the danger room sequence may serve to establish peter and kitty, the cure will be tied in with introducing beast and angel, events surronding the return of phoenix will directly tie in to storm's character developments, etc, etc and their characters will be part of the story rather than extraneous elements. a decent writer and director, working in conjunction, can easily incorporate all the story's elements into 103 minutes.

This was exactly the point I was making weeks ago when this discussion first arose.
I gave up. Good luck to you though.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

any scriptwriter worthy of being paid for the job will hopefully be weaving these elements together so that the story makes narrative sense and moves along at a decent pace. so for example, the danger room sequence may serve to establish peter and kitty, the cure will be tied in with introducing beast and angel, events surronding the return of phoenix will directly tie in to storm's character developments, etc, etc and their characters will be part of the story rather than extraneous elements. a decent writer and director, working in conjunction, can easily incorporate all the story's elements into 103 minutes.

Surely, but I wasn't suggesting these events to be treated saparately.

If they do what you listed above (and I do believe they will), 103 minutes are just a blink.

Yes, they can easily incorporate it to the story, but the development will left a lot to be desired.

Tension, emotion, and the way to prepare the public to it is not a magical device, in which you can squeeze whatever you want in such a little time. Pas possible.

My assumption: some of the new characters will be decorative, almost quotes; some parts of both the cure and Dark Phoenix will be like a videoclip.

This is bad. It shouldn't be a hurried action flick. It should be the epic conclusion of three good movies.

 

[Maze]

agreed, it was a facile comparison, but the point still stands - that size is no indicator of quality. the impression I get from this thread and others like it (and indeed, from the post directly above mine) is that people think there are too many elements to be squeezed into 103 minutes, almost as if each element (introducing kitty and beast, the danger room, talking about the cure, magento's plan, phoenix, and all the rest of it) will happen be slotted in one after another in a modular, clearly delineated fashion.

any scriptwriter worthy of being paid for the job will hopefully be weaving these elements together so that the story makes narrative sense and moves along at a decent pace. so for example, the danger room sequence may serve to establish peter and kitty, the cure will be tied in with introducing beast and angel, events surronding the return of phoenix will directly tie in to storm's character developments, etc, etc and their characters will be part of the story rather than extraneous elements. a decent writer and director, working in conjunction, can easily incorporate all the story's elements into 103 minutes.

nonetheless,.

I appreciate it's a discussion forum, but I just feel sometimes people are overly and unjustly negative...perhaps because it's more fun, which is undeniable

Don't make assumptions.

Being negative is maybe more fun for you

that said ..about the running time :don't get me wrong all is possible , you can have a good fast paced Xmovie, with all that no doubts about it.

but where the characters and the plot breath , hence building a momentum?a great epic movie?

i don't think so .

i'm wrong? possible ..but please so, explain me how in 103 minutes Lucas and Richard Marquand could have made justice ,to the Return of the Jedi plot points and characters, and especially how they could have made the story breath , building to that great (epic)final attack.

and while we're at it , explain to me please , how they would have done it in introducing a lot of new characters, and with a major new plot point? ( Simon:that will give to a lot of characters their own unique point of view )

thanks .

 

[Bastila]

As long as it kicks all kinds of ass, the rt isn't THAT important I guess.

I agree as well.

 

[Slim_X]

So, has there been an OFFICIAL confirmation on the running time?

 

[MoiBijou]

Kinberg said the final cut will be around those 103 min... that's a confirmation, more or less. Anyway, he didn't tell if those 103 min include the credits or not.

 

[Bastila]

Sounds like it.

 

[Storm22]

Kinberg actually said 1hr 45mins and so did the Fox official, but neither of them know if credits are included or not.

 

[MoiBijou]

Kinberg actually said 1hr 45mins and so did the Fox official, but neither of them know if credits are included or not.

2 mins more, 2 mins less... that's the time it takes for Logan to smoke his cigar.

 

[Essex]

I can't believe how many people are condemning the creators based on absolutely nothing. To all those complaining, do you think you actually know better than the people who wrote the script or directed the movie and were actually THERE through the entire process? You're on the outside and you know nothing about the actual story events, pacing, etc. I commend the people who have a "wait and see" attitude and I'm utterly confused by the people who think a longer running time automatically makes the movie better...

 

[Storm22]

You know what, it's basically the same length as X1 and many complained about X1 getting too bogged down with character development/being too slow moving and not having enough action. Kinberg said himself that Ratner deliberately edited X3 to creat a real sense of impending war and intensity and they literally dive straight into the film/action, which I think makes sense.
I trust they know what they're doing and am no longer concerned about the running time!

 

[PWN3R]

AHH! Down with this thread's name!


LIES!

 

[lordofthenerds]

2 mins more, 2 mins less... that's the time it takes for Logan to smoke his cigar.

And maybe even...Gambit cameo!

 

[Tony Stark]

Ultimately I care only if the movie was good or not. You can have a 3 hour long movie and it could suck rocks....***cough****the postman****cough*****

The only reason I might care is them cutting down on Cyke's already reduced roll. Personally if he lives at the end, I'll be a little less concerned.

 

[tonytr1687]

Not having to explore as much character set-up is no excuse for a short running time. You know why? What exactly have we heard from Kinberg and Penn and Ratner concerning the returning characters hmm? That they're going to grow and evolve throughout the film as they decide which side of the cure/war issue they're going to stand with. Growing and evolving as a character takes time, especially when you take into account that there's 10 returning players (Xavier, Magneto, Logan, Jean, Storm, Rogue, Cyclops, Iceman, Mystique, Pyro) that need continuing development. Sure, they dont have to take much time to set up their basic personalities and their backgrounds, but you can't just abandon them as characters. They have to keep growing, and I honestly dont see how that can be done for so many characters in 103 minutes. Then there's 4 primary new characters who are being introduced (Beast, Angel, Juggernaut, Kitty) that need just as much time if not more. Not to mention the 7 "medium roles" (Callisto, Colossus, Warren Sr, Leech, Doctor Rao, Trask, Multiple Man) which require at least some exposition.

See where I'm going? Including medium and smaller roles, X2 basically had 15 characters (Xavier, Magneto, Stryker, Logan, Jean, Storm, Cyclops, Rogue, Iceman, Pyro, Mystique, Nightcrawler, Deathstrike, Mutant 143, President McKenna) to contend with, and that film had over 2 hours to tell it all. By comparison, X3 has 21 characters to contend with (plus two major storylines instead of one) and as it stands only 103 minutes to tell it all. Do the math and you'll see why a lot of us are worried. Hell, I didn't even mention Arclight and Quills who themselves are supposed to be more than cameos.

 

[tonytr1687]

You know what, it's basically the same length as X1 and many complained about X1 getting too bogged down with character development/being too slow moving and not having enough action. Kinberg said himself that Ratner deliberately edited X3 to creat a real sense of impending war and intensity and they literally dive straight into the film/action, which I think makes sense.
I trust they know what they're doing and am no longer concerned about the running time!

You're ****ing kidding right? The biggest complaint on X1 was that it DIDNT have enough character development and it moved TOO fast. People didn't want more action, they wanted better action. The people who complained that there should have been more were your usual MTV-attention span young person who prefers Charlies Angels to Lord of the Rings. X1's length was its main flaw, through and through. Ask any professional movie critic or just any fan of movies in general.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hmmm... At least he´s saying the cut wasn´t imposed by the studio... but still one hour and 43 minutes seems short to cover the cure plot, the rise of the dark phoenix, a character´s death, the introduction of Angel and Beast, two important characters... I dunno, feels like it might end up feeling rushed.