Running Time Confusion

[craigdbfan]

Wolverine's Running still seems to be 107 minutes

...Speaking of which, when the movie showed up online, Fox head Tom Rothman told Entertainment Weekly that “the version that went out” was “about 10 minutes shorter, doesn’t have key scenes, it wasn’t edited, and none of the effects shots were in any remotely final form.” The Huffington Post noticed that both the leaked “unfinished” workprint and the final cut have the same running time of 107 minutes. How could this be? Did Rothman lie? Or does the theatrical cut actually feature ten minutes of “key scenes” not in the early cut?

Movieline ’s sources claim that “cuts had been made to the leaked workprint before the additional footage was added, which resulted in a similar running time.” I’m sure we’ll find out exactly how much different the theatrical cut is early next week.

- Slashfilm

Rothman has lied before so I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

So did Rothman lie? Or does the theatrical cut of the film have these "supposed scenes".

I'm going with lie. What about you guys?

 

[Peter McCabe]

A thread like this actually just got shut down, but hopefully this one can survive.

We'll know if Rothman was lying in 9 days

 

[night0205]

I'm going with they edited around 6-10 minutes off the leaked footage, and added 6-10 minutes of new footage already edited...to keep it the same run time. You guys it's easy to cut 6-10 minutes off a film in editing...especially that leaked version we saw.

 

[craigdbfan]

A thread like this actually just got shut down, but hopefully this one can survive.

We'll know if Rothman was lying in 9 days

Well seeing as the running time thread was locked because of off topic discussions we should have some sort of thread to discuss the running time until confirmed.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Well seeing as the running time thread was locked because of off topic discussions we should have some sort of thread to discuss the running time until confirmed.

I agree.

*I think 107 minutes will work well with this story,

Spoiler

specially because the footage of the wars and the material from ORIGIN only take up about 5 minutes of the film.

Its a revenge story at heart, and most revenge stories run 90 - 100 minutes.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fox does this all the time. Makes up fake rumors and lies about running times to appease fans. Sometimes they even smokescreen or plant fake rumors.

 

[chaseter]

He lied...the end.

 

[J.Howlett]

Looks to be a lie...unless they've done a major re-edit in the last 22 days.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Looks to be a lie...unless they've done a major re-edit in the last 22 days.

Try 122 days

The possibility of the final film containing 10 minutes of footage that the workprint doesnt contain, STILL exists.

All they had to do was swap something they weren't happy with for something they thought would work better.

I think that was the entire reason for the reshoots.

They must have shown the workprint to somebody before January, and the reaction was mixed. That's when they decided to go back and shoot something new.

Something involving Jackman, Schreiber and Reynolds.

We'll know in 8 days.

 

[Timstuff]

I doubt it will be any different. Why do they both have a run time of exactly 107 minutes? Why doesn't the new cut have a runtime of say, 108 minutes? If there was any significant difference between the two cuts besides the CG, post processing effects, and score, then why would the run time be exactly the same?

I think Rothman lied. It wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last. I think that the cut we saw already had the "new" footage in it.

 

[J.Howlett]

The workprint did not have any new footage...and you can tell by Hugh and Liev's beard throughout the film. That was original production footage throughout the workprint.

Peter, you might be correct. There is a chance that a lot of the new material is simply reworking of scenes that existed in the workprint, hence the same running time. It is possible. That theory is nothing new in filmmaking.

I'm hopeful...even if I have major problems with some aspects of how the film is constructed, which no reshoots can technically fix.

 

[Nivek]

He lied to all of you, again. And after May, all the hopes and pipedreams of a rough edit being a severe departure from the final picture will clash with hard reality.

 

[Nathan]

Just another lie.

 

[TNC9852002]

lol. Even when the running time was so-called confirmed as longer, people still called everyone "liars".

I like how people's hidden agendas are just laid out there on the street like that.

Otherwise, I'm still pretty skeptical here. We have confirmation from the actors themselves that additional photography was done after the testing of the workprint footage. I would expect a small difference in the running time as a result. With so much confusion and conflict, it seems pretty presumptuous to take one source as final.

 

[Juggernaut33]

Rothman is a pathological liar, he has to be for business purposes. He also said that key sequences were missing even though the plot seems, to a certain extent considering the ****y script they worked with, coherent. Plus we have a certain number of informations that led me to believe that the reshoot sequences were integrated to this workprint version:


Did you do additional shooting to have more Deadpool in the movie?

A lot of people thought that, but when they approached me to play Deadpool, I was committed to doing two other movies. A movie called Paper Man, which was a small independent movie in New York City. And they were shooting Wolverine in Australia, so that made things a little bit difficult. And The Proposal, so I had a full plate already. So the idea was to shoot the Deadpool stuff after principal photography had finished. So in effect, they weren't really reshoots, they were just additional shots. Scenes we needed to pick up. They didn't add really anything beyond the script.


http://www.latinoreview.com/news/ryan-reynolds-talks-deadpool-6367


In the workprint, you can clearly see Ryan Reynolds under the Deadpool/Weapon XI makeup. Hell you can see close ups of his face behind a green screen.


More:


These photos were taken during the reshoots:


http://xmenfilms.net/blog/?p=2869


That sequence is in the workprint.


Bottom line: Rothman is a HUGE liar. I don't blame him, he can't just say: “yeah well if you don't like this version you won't probably won't like the finished product because it's the same thing but with completed FX.”


Jackman statement had more honesty to it since he compared the workprint to a “ferrari without a paint job” like a cut without the finished FX.

 

[dark_b]

Rothman is a pathological liar, he has to be for business purposes. He also said that key sequences were missing even though the plot seems, to a certain extent considering the ****y script they worked with, coherent. Plus we have a certain number of informations that led me to believe that the reshoot sequences were integrated to this workprint version:


Did you do additional shooting to have more Deadpool in the movie?

A lot of people thought that, but when they approached me to play Deadpool, I was committed to doing two other movies. A movie called Paper Man, which was a small independent movie in New York City. And they were shooting Wolverine in Australia, so that made things a little bit difficult. And The Proposal, so I had a full plate already. So the idea was to shoot the Deadpool stuff after principal photography had finished. So in effect, they weren't really reshoots, they were just additional shots. Scenes we needed to pick up. They didn't add really anything beyond the script.


http://www.latinoreview.com/news/ryan-reynolds-talks-deadpool-6367


In the workprint, you can clearly see Ryan Reynolds under the Deadpool/Weapon XI makeup. Hell you can see close ups of his face behind a green screen.


More:


These photos were taken during the reshoots:


http://xmenfilms.net/blog/?p=2869


That sequence is in the workprint.


Bottom line: Rothman is a HUGE liar. I don't blame him, he can't just say: “yeah well if you don't like this version you won't probably won't like the finished product because it's the same thing but with completed FX.”


Jackman statement had more honesty to it since he compared the workprint to a “ferrari without a paint job” like a cut without the finished FX.

i said the same thing in the old thread.

i think it is true.

 

[Timstuff]

Yup, Rothman is a pathological liar. Maybe he wouldn't have to be if the movies his studio was pumping out didn't suck so bad.

 

[TNC9852002]

Yup, Rothman is a pathological liar. Maybe he wouldn't have to be if the movies his studio was pumping out didn't suck so bad.

Are you talking 20th Century FOX "movies" in general? Don't say things you can't take back..


Here it is:

“The version that went out is unfinished. It’s about 10 minutes shorter, doesn’t have key scenes, it wasn’t edited, and none of the effects shots were in any remotely final form,” Rothman said. “It’s a complete misrepresentation of the film and is deeply unfair to the people who have worked on it for years.”

Even I won't argue about this...

....until I see the movie for myself anyway. But the 10 minute thing seems most unlikely, despite myself hearing other media sources mentioning that the final film was going to be longer, and if so, where was their information coming from?

What really upsets me is that I'm sure that Rothman didn't even watch the leak himself and that someone had to tell him about what was going on.

Little did he know the effects his words would have.

 

[Timstuff]

If the movie wasn't edited, we'd be looking at about 40 hours or more of raw footage straight from the film canister. Typical damage control BS.

 

[TNC9852002]

Well, c'mon. I think you know what he meant by that. Since he's spoke partly true about a few things there, it's possible that he was just talking about in terms of finished product. A movie can have last-minute edits up until around three weeks before its released as I remember. It wouldn't be called a workprint if most of the scenes weren't edited at least to where the movie is basically meshed together in order.

 

[Kanon]

The sources of the running time, for the final version seems to be 2:

Around 10 days ago, The Brittish Board of Film Classification: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/0F19F01390BAC413802575920053B0C9?OpenDocument

Now, The Huffington Post, (linked in /Film) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/ten-minutes-shorter-eh-fi_b_189549.html, cites the AMC theater chain: http://www.movietickets.com/movie_detail.asp?movie_id=61760

Question: Is AMC reliable?

TNC9852002, you said your theater gets the copy of the film on around Tuesday. It is possible that AMC doesn't have a copy, and is getting that runtime from either a estimate based on the bootleg, or the information in the The Brittish Board of Film Classification site?

If The Brittish Board of Film Classification is the only and main source, we should notice that it has a disclaimer that says "This work was passed with no cuts made".

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted what "no cuts made" means. Still, could the Brittish Board be wrong?

 

[TNC9852002]

Well, AMC is only the 2nd largest movie chain in the world, so..

That could be the cork in the bottle there. But I do see where the confusion lies. I'm not holding my breath on this, but here's waiting for additional sources..

 

[Anton Oksehud]

According to the website of the biggest danish movie chain, the running time is 109 minutes (1hr. 49minutes. w/o previews and commercials):

http://www.kino.dk/Film/W/WO/Wolverine.aspx

Yay.... 2 more minutes.... ;-)

 

[Kanon]

And Village cines (Argentina) says is 121 min

http://www.villagecines.com/pelicul...760&cartelera=X-Men%20Or%EDgenes:%20Wolverine

To be fair, I'm pretty sure they pulled that number out of their asses

 

[Rac]

British, Dutch and Finnish classification boards have all seen the film and running time was 106 minutes. End of story.