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

[X-Maniac]

I will admit that short superhero movies - Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, Fantastic Four - were the ones that seemed poor. Many people like the Director's Cut of Daredevil, but i do know superhero fans who don't like it and prefer the original cinematic cut. In fairness, the cinematic Daredevil never seemed too short when i watched it, neither did Elektra, Catwoman or FF. It may be that it's coincidence that these weaker superhero movies were shorter, because it was the quality of parts of the storyline, the directing and structure that was poor. When criticising Elektra, Catwoman or FF, no one has ever said 'and they were too friggin short!' Not one person has said that.

King Kong and the LoTR movies all seemed too long... although you could still see the quality of the film-making. But Jackson's overindulgent directing should have been trimmed... i was longing for the old days when cinemas had an interval/intermission in the middle of the movie.

We shall know in a month if X3 seems too short. But try not to have the preconception of it being short when watching it. Be absorbed in the story first of all.

 

[TNC9852002]

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

 

[War Party]

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.

Main Page.

 

[Specter313]

This thread is kinda worthless now if anyone's seen the main page. At least for the time being.

 

[xstormfan]

i swear....do you people ever get tired of complaining

 

[Angry Sentinel]

... methinks kinberg's latest comments may be creating a change of heart about this movie runtime issue...hmmmm

 

[JokerNick]

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.

Villains are single entities, that's like saying the German army in 1944 was a villan, Hitler was technically, not his army, but that's not the point, if yo get technical with the x-men series, you would need more then one page, Kinberg is judging a movie that really set a new standard in comic book movies, and it's coming of like jealousy, that's like me, who's a Packer fan, ripping on the bears for not making the superbowl, yeah, they were good, but they could have done this or that better, but the comments are just coming out of jeaslousy towards them

 

[SilentType]

... methinks kinberg's latest comments may be creating a change of heart about this movie runtime issue...hmmmm

who's heart?

 

[tonytr1687]

I will admit that short superhero movies - Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, Fantastic Four - were the ones that seemed poor. Many people like the Director's Cut of Daredevil, but i do know superhero fans who don't like it and prefer the original cinematic cut. In fairness, the cinematic Daredevil never seemed too short when i watched it, neither did Elektra, Catwoman or FF. It may be that it's coincidence that these weaker superhero movies were shorter, because it was the quality of parts of the storyline, the directing and structure that was poor. When criticising Elektra, Catwoman or FF, no one has ever said 'and they were too friggin short!' Not one person has said that.

King Kong and the LoTR movies all seemed too long... although you could still see the quality of the film-making. But Jackson's overindulgent directing should have been trimmed... i was longing for the old days when cinemas had an interval/intermission in the middle of the movie.

We shall know in a month if X3 seems too short. But try not to have the preconception of it being short when watching it. Be absorbed in the story first of all.

I was with you up until you said LOTR was too long...

 

[Maze]

This thread is kinda worthless now if anyone's seen the main page. At least for the time being.

Well , when we look at it this running time is still a possibility( seeing Kinberg comments) so i don't think that is worthless to discuss it..

people have the time, like that ,to think and discuss about the eventuality ..

 

[JokerNick]

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

what were his views on X2 and spidey

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Villains are single entities, that's like saying the German army in 1944 was a villan, Hitler was technically, not his army, but that's not the point, if yo get technical with the x-men series, you would need more then one page, Kinberg is judging a movie that really set a new standard in comic book movies, and it's coming of like jealousy, that's like me, who's a Packer fan, ripping on the bears for not making the superbowl, yeah, they were good, but they could have done this or that better, but the comments are just coming out of jeaslousy towards them

Nah sorry I count all bad guys but okay...hehe. I am not following what is going on with Kinberg in this just stating that there is more bad guys in BB than 3.

 

[tonytr1687]

what were his views on X2 and spidey

He thought they were almost equal in quality, except that Spidey 2 had a little more emotion and better action. I agree with him there...but his thoughts on BB angered me just a bit.

 

[JokerNick]

Well , when we look at it this running time is still a possibility( seeing Kinberg comments) so i don't think that is worthless to discuss it..

people have the time, like that ,to think and discuss about the eventuality ..

yep, if they don't like the convo, leave...................

my only problem with BB was Katie Holmes, while nice to look at, she's a sub par actress, and the movie would have been better if her lawyer was substituted with Harvey Dent, and they had some other girl as Bruces love interest

 

[LastSunrise1981]

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?

 

[JokerNick]

He thought they were almost equal in quality, except that Spidey 2 had a little more emotion and better action. I agree with him there...but his thoughts on BB angered me just a bit.

is he comparing them to BB??

 

[Angry Sentinel]

who's heart?

he he he... I don't know, are you feeling especially different...

But 35min? Thats a lot.

 

[tonytr1687]

is he comparing them to BB??

No I think they were seperate questions.

 

[JokerNick]

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?

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.......

 

[SilentType]

he he he... I don't know, are you feeling especially different...

why would I?

 

[Darth Elektra]

I think its about right.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

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.

Exactly.

 

[kentshakespeare]

Is this is the sort of BS where we pretend Tupac was as good a wordsmith as Shakespeare because "cultural heirarchies make no sense"?

Cultural heirarchies do make sense. Some art is objectively better than other art. Shakespeare is better than Tupac, and Kubrick is better than Ratner. The Upanishads are better literature than Left Behind. I'm sure you can disagree, you can even agree but pretend I can't say one is better than the other, but there are people who disagree with me about the shape of the Earth also.

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.......

not always... thats like saying arguing about evolution is pointless becuase 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.

 

[X-Maniac]

I was with you up until you said LOTR was too long...

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.

 

[The Batman]

"Faster pace" is, nowadays, just an excuse to senseless editing, that can't state the value of each scene properly in the development of the story. It produces void movies, like FF and the last Harry Potter. Everything runs to the end, because no one cares about what's going on.

And there is something really funny happening here these days. X2, which everyone agreed it was one of the best comicbook movies, has started receiving some complaints like that, people saying: "Huh, you know, it was a bit too long".

It is amazing how far people can go not to see that the running time of 103 min. for X3 is just a shame.

Exactly. Notice how its too long since kinberg and penn think it was? It's only 15 past the length of a two hour movie. How is that too long?