Justice League JL Runtime Thread. Yay? Or Nay?

[Jekecy]

Run-time means nothing to me. I actually can't believe people are all up in arms about it to the point of entire main thread domination. Once I'm into a movie, everything else fades and all that's left is the determination of like or disliking it. It really doesn't go much deeper than that. I like going to the late showing so at least this means I'll get home at a decent time.

Yup and I don’t sit there after thinking about the run time. After I think about how much I liked or disliked a film.

Most would concede a good film can still come out of a runtime like this (if true).

The bigger point is this is the culmination of the DC brand finally coming out united in one franchise. It’s deserving of something grandiose. Many of us have been waiting decades and/or whole lives for this moment to come.

Good film or not, a sub-2hr movie is difficult to convey that sense of weight. While ultimately we all want to come out of this film pleased, what I and others fear is also coming out of it with a sense of under-accomplishment. A lean, fun movie isn’t enough (for me).

 

[kguillou]

@tra-el and BH/HHH have you never seen a movie though where you felt unsatisfied because you just could feel that stuff was rushed through? For example, that nearly ruined Dr Strange for me, i feel like that movie could easily have been 15 mins longer and added more character development for Strange before his accident. That felt very rushed to me and unsatisfying. And i didnt go into that movie knowing how long it was, I just watched it and it FELT short and kind of "thats it?" to me.

 

[BH/HHH]

Most would concede a good film can still come out of a runtime like this (if true).

The bigger point is this is the culmination of the DC brand finally coming out united in one franchise. It’s deserving of something grandiose. Many of us have been waiting decades and/or whole lives for this moment to come.

Good film or not, a sub-2hr movie is difficult to convey that sense of weight. While ultimately we all want to come out of this film pleased, what I and others fear is also coming out of it with a sense of under-accomplishment. A lean, fun movie isn’t enough (for me).

I don’t think if it is just 2 hours that will mean it’s only gonna be a lean fun movie at all. You can tell a lot of story and build characters in 2 hours. I really think people are getting too hung up on what the length means. Even at only 2 hours (which is actually a long time) they can easily have made something epic that accomplishes a lot.

Although let’s not forget it’s bit confirmed to only be 2 hours.

 

[BH/HHH]

@tra-el and BH/HHH have you never seen a movie though where you felt unsatisfied because you just could feel that stuff was rushed through? For example, that nearly ruined Dr Strange for me, i feel like that movie could easily have been 15 mins longer and added more character development for Strange before his accident. That felt very rushed to me and unsatisfying. And i didnt go into that movie knowing how long it was, I just watched it and it FELT short and kind of "thats it?" to me.

I can’t think off the top of my head but I’m sure I have. Also I’m not saying if JL is only two hours that I won’t feel it’s rushed. I just feel that 2 hours is enough to tell a great JL story aslong as they’ve done it right. People need to stop getting hung up on the length of the film and actually bother to think about the quality of the film which is what’s most important.

 

[Jekecy]

I don’t think if it is just 2 hours that will mean it’s only gonna be a lean fun movie at all. You can tell a lot of story and build characters in 2 hours. I really think people are getting too hung up on what the length means. Even at only 2 hours (which is actually a long time) they can easily have made something epic that accomplishes a lot.

Although let’s not forget it’s bit confirmed to only be 2 hours.

I’m not writing off the possibility they could pull it off, again it’s just something which would be highly difficult.

Almost all epics share the sense of plodding and patience it requires of its audiences. Much of it to do with the amount of subplots and character development it has to present.

If they go a different route and opt for a high-octane pace from beginning to end…it may work out fantastically. I just don’t believe this is what the original cut and foundation was tailored for, so I fear editing will have their work cut out for them to fit all this in.

 

[BH/HHH]

I’m not writing off the possibility they could pull it off, again it’s just something which would be highly difficult.

Almost all epics share the sense of plodding and patience it requires of its audiences. Much of it to do with the amount of subplots and character development it has to present.

If they go a different route and opt for a high-octane pace from beginning to end…it may work out fantastically. I just don’t believe this is what the original cut and foundation was tailored for, so I fear editing will have their work cut out for them to fit all this in.

I think that’s where we disagree I don’t think it is that difficult. 2 hours is a long time and great stories can be done and done well in that run time imo.

I guess we shall see sooner rather than later. Here’s hoping we’re both satisfied come Nov 17th.

 

[Jekecy]

I think that’s where we disagree I don’t think it is that difficult. 2 hours is a long time and great stories can be done and done well in that run time imo.

I guess we shall see sooner rather than later. Here’s hoping we’re both satisfied come Nov 17th.

I think you’re missing where my issue lies:

Is it easier to turn a 2.5hr-targeted script into 2.5hr or 2hr runtime?

Given all other things are equal, ideally your script-to-screen transition is fairly seamless because everything lines up with where they’ve already planned. When you get to the point where you’re cramming and cutting, that’s when quality noticeably dips. For obvious reasons.

If they'd always planned for a 2hr cut, then fine. With a good editor and the appropriate material this production is all well and good. BTS scuttlebutt indicates tons of shuffling however, so I'm dubious of how on-target they were.

 

[Mandon Knight]

If one truly knows what one is doing, then you shoot only what you need according to your shooting script and story board.

 

[BH/HHH]

I think you’re missing where my issue lies:

Is it easier to turn a 2.5hr-targeted script into 2.5hr or 2hr runtime?

Given all other things are equal, ideally your script-to-screen transition is fairly seamless because everything lines up with where they’ve already planned. When you get to the point where you’re cramming and cutting, that’s when quality noticeably dips. For obvious reasons.

We don’t know the script was 2.5 hours though. I think this is my biggest issue with peoples issues with this film there seems to be a lot of assumption. Yes we know they changed it from a two part film into a one part film (although I still think JL1 would have still felt petty stand alone but set up events for JL2 like BvS did for JL). But for all we know the script might have been turned into a two hour film (still not confirmed btw). So for all we know the script could have been ready for a two hour film and the reshoots were done just to fix a few issues as many films do.

If they'd always planned for a 2hr cut, then fine. With a good editor and the appropriate material this production is all well and good. BTS scuttlebutt indicates tons of shuffling however, so I'm dubious of how on-target they were.

I think there’s been a lot of BS mixed with the truth and I think what may be reality is somewhere in the middle of all that scuttlebutt.

As I said before all we can do is wait and see really.

 

[heatvision38]

My opinion is based on the assumption it is only 2 hours, because we don't know for sure yet. And I fully acknowledge I don't have all the info and if it is 2 hours, it could still be done in a way that I really enjoy. Having said that:

2 hours does sound disappointing. Can they make it work within 2 hours? Sure, it's possible. Do I think it's likely, not so sure. I was hoping for a more epic JL film. I wasn't expecting 3 hours, but 2 hours 20-30 minute range is what I was hoping for.

I've seen enough movies to get a sense of what can be done in an 1.5 hour movie, a 2 hour movie, 2.5 hours, and so on. I also know how many big comic book movies are around 2.20. 20 minutes makes a big difference, spread throughout the film, allowing it moments to breathe, smoother scene transitions, staying longer with certain scenes to allow us to live in those scenes, and thus the movie.

When I saw the possible news that Thor would be 1:50, I thought that would be too short for a Thor and Hulk movie that would have elements of Ragnarok and Planet Hulk, but it seems that the movie was 2:10, and that's a movie with only two main characters who have had plenty of past screen time. It also seems like a movie with a fast pace and light on the plot. And yet it's still over 2 hours.

The part that worries me if it is two hours (and of course this could change when I see the movie) is the possibility that WB would be doing this for solely financial reasons (as in, the suits are calling the shots, damaging long-term success like with BvS and SS) rather that combining business with art, which I think allows for the most success.

I also think there's a false equivalency when comparing it to a movie like Ocean's Eleven when we can be quickly introduced to each character and then watch them as a team in what is a fast paced movie, and meant to be that way. Also, comparing it to horror movies like IT doesn't work either, imo, because horror movies and comedies tend to work better in the 1:30-1:45 range.

With Justice League, you are bringing in characters who each themselves are characters (maybe aside from Cyborg) who can get a solo movie and have fans who find that character their favorite one. I don't want to finish this movie and feel like, "Hmm, that was solid, but it felt like it could have been so much more, and it doesn't feel like it completed this 3 movie arc."

Again, the part that concerns me about it is whether this is WB interference, and if it is, then I think that's a problem and don't trust that. Again, this is all on the idea that the 2 hour running time is true, because this is still speculation at this point.

 

[idiot09]

^^Totally agreed dude.

 

[heatvision38]

A long runtime doesn't automatically equal epic. Sometimes a long movie is just a long movie.

True, but I think it's hard to make an epic movie like the JL in two hours or less.

 

[heatvision38]

Run-time means nothing to me. I actually can't believe people are all up in arms about it to the point of entire main thread domination. Once I'm into a movie, everything else fades and all that's left is the determination of like or disliking it. It really doesn't go much deeper than that. I like going to the late showing so at least this means I'll get home at a decent time.

At earlier points in my life, run time would have meant nothing as well, and I would be wondering why people are upset. As I've gotten older, I've noticed more things (as happens as you get older), things that never occurred to me when at earlier points in my life, run time being one of them. Given this, I've noticed what can be done with 1:30 hours, 2 hours, 2:20-2:30 hours, and which films needed more time and which needed less. Given that, I have a hard time seeing how they can accomplish all that is needed and wanted (key part here is both as I don't want a perfunctory JL movie) in 2 hours or slightly less.

 

[Vlyse]

I thought caring about random critics is where fandom got a little weird but this takes the cake.

 

[heatvision38]

Yup and I don’t sit there after thinking about the run time. After I think about how much I liked or disliked a film.

I don't, either. Afterwards, I think about whether I liked it or didn't, and part of what goes into that assessment is whether I thought/felt it was fleshed out enough or it was a little too long or bloated. I'm not necessarily thinking about the run time itself when I'm assessing a movie after seeing it, but whether the things I mentioned above were a plus or a negative. And through my experiences, in looking at movies that I have enjoyed (specifically comic book movies), the one's that I have enjoyed have often been in the 2:20 range.

This of course does not mean that a 2:20 minute movie can't feel bloated and a 2 hour movie can't feel satisfying. I just find it hard to see how a 2 hour JL movie, the apex of the DCEU at this point, will be able more than perfunctory which is what I see a lot of people saying is all it needs to be.

 

[heatvision38]

Most would concede a good film can still come out of a runtime like this (if true).

The bigger point is this is the culmination of the DC brand finally coming out united in one franchise. It’s deserving of something grandiose. Many of us have been waiting decades and/or whole lives for this moment to come.

Good film or not, a sub-2hr movie is difficult to convey that sense of weight. While ultimately we all want to come out of this film pleased, what I and others fear is also coming out of it with a sense of under-accomplishment. A lean, fun movie isn’t enough (for me).

This.

 

[heatvision38]

I can’t think off the top of my head but I’m sure I have. Also I’m not saying if JL is only two hours that I won’t feel it’s rushed. I just feel that 2 hours is enough to tell a great JL story aslong as they’ve done it right. People need to stop getting hung up on the length of the film and actually bother to think about the quality of the film which is what’s most important.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Run time and quality can go hand-in-hand.

 

[matt47]

I think you’re missing where my issue lies:

Is it easier to turn a 2.5hr-targeted script into 2.5hr or 2hr runtime?

Given all other things are equal, ideally your script-to-screen transition is fairly seamless because everything lines up with where they’ve already planned. When you get to the point where you’re cramming and cutting, that’s when quality noticeably dips. For obvious reasons.

If they'd always planned for a 2hr cut, then fine. With a good editor and the appropriate material this production is all well and good. BTS scuttlebutt indicates tons of shuffling however, so I'm dubious of how on-target they were.

This. It's not that I can't see the movie being made with a 2 hr run time in mind. I just dont think that's what they planned for.which means there will be a lot of material left on the cutting room floor.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yay. A two hour running time is for the best.

This is going to be a short, straight forward, audience pleasing, by the numbers movie that won’t outstay its welcome, won’t get bogged down in cod philosophy, won’t be divisive, and won’t be controversial.

No, this isn’t the movie I really want either, but this phase of the DC cinematic universe needs to come to a close, so something better can replace it.

Justice League has bizarrely become something of a placeholder. It just needs to perform well enough so that the audience leaves in a positive frame of mind, and it makes a good pile of cash at the box office. Nothing more.

This should lead into the transition into more stand-alone, self contained, artist driven movies, which is what we should have had in the first bloody place.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

While obviously it is impossible to tell if something is good or not based off of the run-time, I will say that personally I think a two hour run-time is probably an encouraging sign after Snyder's and Whedon's previous films (BvS and Age of Ultron) were both way too long and bloated.

 

[Herolee10]

I think the reasons why BvS (UC) and AOU felt bloated was because the Directors had to include in material in there there were meant to setup their respective universes for their upcoming films rather than focusing entirely on the story that they were trying to tell.

I think the first Avengers film is better example of what a film of this scale should be running time wise, where it leaves a lot of room for the characters to develop and grow on audiences, especially when half of the main cast are being introduced for the first time.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I'm more than happy with 2 hours but is also be happy with anything up to 2 hours and 20 mins, but longer than that I'm not sure.

Basically this. I'll take a good tight 2 hours over an overly drawn-out 2.30/2.40 any day. If I could pick my ideal running length I'd probably go for around 2.20 - but if we end up with a really good 2 hours I'll be a happy man.

 

[2kt09]

I figured I'd create this thread because, lets be honest, its a huge point of contention for a lot of us and I feel bad that the main thread is likely going to overcome with this conversation until the movie comes out, so maybe we can discuss it here and leave the main thread for....other stuff lol

So it seems pretty much official that this'll be a swift 120 mins...which actually is not even 2 hours of movie time. I'm honestly not happy about this at all and while its by no means a fatal blow, its a sucker punch nonetheless. What do you guys think?

Were you the one that did a quick rundown on what's likely taking up the runtime based on the trailers?

I really don't have much to go on besides the animated flick which is 79 minutes and I'd say 41 extra minutes for new & revived characters is fine.

 

[KalvinEllis]

YEY. I am almost 30, I skipped BR2049 because of run time, I just want to sit there at the end of 40h work week and be entertained. Bring it!

I've been 30 for 5 months and I don't care about runtime as long as it's good. I genuinely enjoy going to the cinema, so even if I had a long week, as long as the movie is interesting, I never feel any fatigue. That's usually after the fact.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

If that’s what’s it takes to make a coherent film, then so be it.