• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Iron Man Running Time?

Micah12345

Sidekick
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I heard that this movie is only 90 minutes? Is there any truth to that?
 
i wouldn't be surprised if its going to be sort. Look at FF
 
Paramount needs to look back at the success of the 140+ minute Transformers . . .
 
90 minutes would suck

i'm sure (or at least i hope) that marvel knows that it needs decent pacing for its debut movie to be well received
 
As far as I know this movie isn't being made by Fox. IMHO movies are getting too long, Trasformers ran 20 minutes longer than it should have and so did most movies this past summer. I like 1 hr and 55 minutes as a run time. Now or days, too many movies are 2 hrs and 20min just for the hell of it. I want reasonable runtimes again.
 
I hope not, comic book movies with only 90 minutes tend to suck.
Comic book movies should be, at least, 120 minutes.
There is much to tell before the "super-hero" part.
 
Didn't Favreau say the rough cut was around 3 hrs so the final running time would be close to 2 hrs? I thought he said something about that in his blog.
 
^And what's wrong with a run time of "close to two hours"? Seems fine to me. I just want it to be as long as it needs to be to tell the story well. As long as that happens and it's not bloated out or cut too much, then I don't see the problem.
 
I sure hope it is longer than 90min, I don't think a superhero origin story can be told in 90min, 2hrs and over would be fine with me, but like someone else said whatever amount of time is needed to tell the story correctly.
 
Unfortunately? 2 hours sounds like a good running time to me?
Well I actually meant he's going to cut an hour of screentime, I have no idea if it's from 3 to 2 or not. And I find the fact that he's cutting an hour of footage a bit worrying.
 
It's like that way for a lot of movies.

The movie MADE which Favreau starred, directed, and produced when it was first done had a cut that was over about two and a half hours long, and the final cut ended up being about 95 minutes.

I mean I do think MADE is a good movie and all. What was cut besides some select deleted scenes was just a lot of extra dialogue and scene extensions for certain sequences that just went on a LOOONG time, much longer than they needed to be.

Well rent the MADE DVD some time. It will tell you a lot about filmmaking.

If the rough cut is 3 hours long, chances are it's nowhere near a viewable state for general audiences.
 
between 2 to 2 hrs, 15 minutes would be fine
 
I imagine it's 1hr45min to 2hrs. I think 90 minutes would be too short and this is Marvel Studios not Fox. Favreau has listned to the fans and he's still reading his messgaes so send him how long you think it should be on myspace, but put the time in the headline in case he breezes through them.
 
X-Men 1 & 3 were 1hr 45mins. I'd be fine if IM was between that and 2 hrs.
 
Well I actually meant he's going to cut an hour of screentime, I have no idea if it's from 3 to 2 or not. And I find the fact that he's cutting an hour of footage a bit worrying.


He didn't "cut" an hour of footage in the way your suggesting. He didn't want a 3 hour movie. He wasn't pressured to cut an hour off the film.

When you make a movie, you film more than you need. Different angles, different transition shots, dialogue that is redundant, etc. It's like writing a rough draft of a paper : you get everything down and then go through and then go through and clean it up. You realize that a certain paragraph was unnecessary or that the narrative drags too much. Think about it, if a director only shot 90 minutes of film for a 90 minute film, and then goes back in editing to find that 5 minutes of it were shot poorly, acted through poorly or just redundant, he'd have nothing to replace it with. That's why you shoot more than you need.

This is not the same as shooting a "directors cut" and then releasing a shorter "theatrical cut". The hour or so of stuff that was cut was cut by Favreau because it just wasn't usable, good or necessary. Just because it ended up on a piece of film doesn't mean it was good or that he's robbing you of anything.

Please, for the love of god, stop freaking out over nothing.
 
Exactly. When they're done shooting it's like they have a heap of clay. Then they edit it into a sculpture and the leftover clay gets thrown away. However in this case their could be "some" left over to add back later if they wished that might slow down the story for a movie audience...yet would be more interesting to explore at home.
 
He didn't "cut" an hour of footage in the way your suggesting. He didn't want a 3 hour movie. He wasn't pressured to cut an hour off the film.

When you make a movie, you film more than you need. Different angles, different transition shots, dialogue that is redundant, etc. It's like writing a rough draft of a paper : you get everything down and then go through and then go through and clean it up. You realize that a certain paragraph was unnecessary or that the narrative drags too much. Think about it, if a director only shot 90 minutes of film for a 90 minute film, and then goes back in editing to find that 5 minutes of it were shot poorly, acted through poorly or just redundant, he'd have nothing to replace it with. That's why you shoot more than you need.

This is not the same as shooting a "directors cut" and then releasing a shorter "theatrical cut". The hour or so of stuff that was cut was cut by Favreau because it just wasn't usable, good or necessary. Just because it ended up on a piece of film doesn't mean it was good or that he's robbing you of anything.

Please, for the love of god, stop freaking out over nothing.
I just said this pretty much.

I'd still like the movie to be more than 90 minutes though.

The first and third X-men movies were 95 minutes without credits.
 
^^^

I'd say anything below 2 hours is a guarantee of the movie being crap.
 
A two hour film is fine. 110ish minutes running time would be fine for me, too.
 
I heard that this movie is only 90 minutes? Is there any truth to that?

Favreau already confirmed at this past ComicCon in San Diego that the movie would be around 90 min. I started a thread at the time and posted the audio clip of him saying this. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Just found it. He didn't say 90 min, my mistake. He said the film would be under 2 hours.


Interviewer: (Jokingly)So there's gonna be no 40 hour extended cut.

Favreau: No, I hope not. I looked at a cut and the longest cut of everything was a little less than 3 hours, which isn't that long for a first cut. It will be below 2 by the time it comes out. So, I have a lot of decisions to make.


http://www.comingsoon.net/audio/favreauironman.mp3
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"