Running Time Now Official

The mainstream audience is moving toward critic proof action romps now, instead of the type that sweeps critics and fans alike and gets the highest recognition for getting it ALL right. Its unfortunate imo. Lucas' Star Wars is a HUGE example of a marketable franchise running on that type of admiration. (critics always hated lucas lol)
 
this movie is going to suck and you know how i know, because of the running time, it's shorter, so they dont' care about character development, they are depending on the action
 
XCharlieX said:
The mainstream audience is moving toward critic proof action romps now, instead of the type that sweeps critics and fans alike and gets the highest recognition for getting it ALL right. Lucas' Star Wars is a HUGE example of a marketable franchise running on that type of admiration.

But when you spend as much time on the Net as us fans do & we know & see everything ahead of time & then after being promised there will only be 30 Seconds Cut & now it seems like they cutted out alot of good stuff. That does not piss you off :confused: This Movie is getting The Fantastic Four Treatment
 
Baadshah2 said:
this movie is going to suck and you know how i know, because of the running time, it's shorter, so they dont' care about character development, they are depending on the action

Because we all KNOW length determines quality...

Never mind the script, actors, or direction. None of those matter if the movie has a shorter running time...





End sarcasm.
 
Yeah but what can you do. Im at the point where im just going to see the film and decide if its a good lid on the franchise with an action bang.
 
Originally Filmed to be longer - Check

Had a big Marketing Campaign & pretty much showed all the best stuff long before the Movie comes out - Check

Final Cut - Alot of great Character Development Scenes are cut so there can be more Action & a Shorter Running Time - Check

This is Fantastic Four all over again
 
well, the bbfc and the mpaa rate and censor movies differently...theres going to be a tiny difference in the american version I think...not saying the runtime isn't locked...it very well could be...Imdb has just listed it...however, they still have Omega Red listed as a character in the cast.
 
WorthyStevens4 said:
Because we all KNOW length determines quality...

Never mind the script, actors, or direction. None of those matter if the movie has a shorter running time...





End sarcasm.
it's the overall aspect that supposedly the final film in the series is the shortest.

think of the history of franchises where the one of the films is the shortest than the rest and it turns out to be crap or not live up to it's predecessors. Like Jurassic Park 3 is one example. they ditched the story and when straight to action.

If u think of what the movie is about, the movie seems too short to tell all and explain all
 
Strgts said:
Originally Filmed to be longer - Check

Had a big Marketing Campaign & pretty much showed all the best stuff long before the Movie comes out - Check

Final Cut - Alot of great Character Development Scenes are cut so there can be more Action & a Shorter Running Time - Check

This is Fantastic Four all over again
Stupid Fox. Why can't they understand that people don't want fast-paced popcorn forgetable flicks. I'd think they would learn after Daredevil, FF, and Elektra.
 
lordofthenerds said:
Why can't they understand that people don't want fast-paced popcorn forgetable flicks.

Because they usually point to the many that went to see it. Longer scifi/action films are old school to this generation seems to me.
 
Strgts said:
Originally Filmed to be longer - Check

Had a big Marketing Campaign & pretty much showed all the best stuff long before the Movie comes out - Check

Final Cut - Alot of great Character Development Scenes are cut so there can be more Action & a Shorter Running Time - Check

This is Fantastic Four all over again
Well, I won't bother with the first one because I'm pretty sure that over 90% of all movies are originally filmed to be longer, but how do we know for sure how much development was cut and was cut for the purposes for more action?...Sounds like BS...

"Developmental scenes" are cut out of movies all the time...

-TNC
 
lordofthenerds said:
Stupid Fox. Why can't they understand that people don't want fast-paced popcorn forgetable flicks. I'd think they would learn after Daredevil, FF, and Elektra.
The fast-pacing isn't what hurt those movies, IMO...At least for Fantastic Four...and Daredevil wasn't even fast-paced, if you ask me...It had good pacing, but that's not what hurt it...

-TNC
 
Baadshah2 said:
it's the overall aspect that supposedly the final film in the series is the shortest.

think of the history of franchises where the one of the films is the shortest than the rest and it turns out to be crap or not live up to it's predecessors. Like Jurassic Park 3 is one example. they ditched the story and when straight to action.

If u think of what the movie is about, the movie seems too short to tell all and explain all

Yes, but we have reviews coming in saying that it's NOT all action.
 
TNC9852002 said:
how do we know for sure how much development was cut and was cut for the purposes for more action?...Sounds like BS...

Ratner & Kinberg are on record saying that ONLY 30 SECONDS were cut. It seems like FOX took control of this Movie in the end
 
WorthyStevens4 said:
Yes, but we have reviews coming in saying that it's NOT all action.

Its encouraging at least that it at least has the framework for an interesting story... but povs of the perfect ratio of story to action nowadays is a bit offset imo. Theyre able to have less of it and say it was perfect.
 
Baadshah2 said:
this movie is going to suck and you know how i know, because of the running time, it's shorter, so they dont' care about character development, they are depending on the action

Ummm, haven't we been hearing beside having a short running time, the movie is still pretty good!!! I mean that's what most of the reviews are saying, right!!!:confused:
 
Strgts[B said:
]Ratner & Kinberg are on record saying that ONLY 30 SECONDS were cut[/B]. It seems like FOX took control of this Movie in the end
Do you have a link to that qoute?
 
UPDATE
The running time has also been officialy confirmed by the The Australian Office of Film & Literature Classification.

Classification M
Consumer Advice Moderate action violence

Category Film - Pub Exh
Version ORIGINAL
Duration 104 minute(s)
Date of Classification 16 May 2006

Author BRETT RATNER
Publisher AVI ARAD , RALPH WINTER , LAUREN SHULER DONNER
Production Company TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
Country of Origin USA

Applicant TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD
File Number T05/5034
Classification Number 4053442A
Link: http://www.oflc.gov.au/content.html...Y=1970&sDateToM=5&sDateToY=2006&record=213704
 
Rothman has just released a statement. "We pwned the fans...bwahahaha."
 
RedIsNotBlue said:
Rothman has just released a statement. "We pwned the fans...bwahahaha."
Where did you read that, Red?
 
I'm really disappointed that the film is 104 min:down! I wish they had just cut out the Danger Room scene and spent more time on character development! That scene was awful and really doesn't add to the story!
 
Ursavior01 said:
My guess and it's only a guess. I don't think that's the official time. I think that's the time from the press screening. The same one that PWR saw. I bet they're getting the time from the press screening because the movie premiered in Mexico City with a running time of 1 hour 50 minutes w/o credits.
I could be wrong, but I still don't believe that that's the official running time.

hilarious
 
Has it occurred to anyone that the runtime quoted is for the inetrnational cut......everything quoted is from Britain and Australia.

It may very well be that the runtime is exactly the same for the US version, but at least acknowledge the fact that the US versions runtime hasn't been officially announced
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"