Runtime confirmed by Fox: 92 minutes!

[Ryo Jin]

I think this is one time downloading the movie is for a good cause. To give a giant middle finger to Fox

Exactly. Like the first two Spider-Man movies, I watched the 3rd twice in theaters. But this doesn't deserve my money, not when FOX keeps butchering our favorite character's movies like this. To hell with them. I live in Japan anyway so the movie doesn't come out for like another month, d/ling's the way to go it seems.

 

[Ryo Jin]

What the heck are you talking about? lol Who is denying the time?

Not the one to point fingers but it's the post under yours

 

[Sebastos]

I can't believe it's shorter than the first movie. But o well, that won't stop me from seeing it.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Oh my sweet jesus.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I wonder if a shorter film is a good or bad thing with fans...

 

[Will]

Eh, I'll still watch it in the theater.

I just won't be going in the night time hours so I'll just catch it at the matinée price.

 

[Ryo Jin]

I wonder if a shorter film is a good or bad thing with fans...

 

[Hunter Rider]

I can't think of any film with such huge set pieces and such a short run time having any room to breathe and enjoy the quieter character moments

 

[Downhere]

I can't think of any film with such huge set pieces and such a short run time having any room to breathe and enjoy the quieter character moments

Exactly, it seems some people seem to think it can be done but it was barely done in the first one and that was light on action compared to this one which looks to have upped the action quiet a bit and add an even shorter runtime than the previous film and it doesn't look good for the character moments we all have been craving for.

 

[Will]

I wonder if a shorter film is a good or bad thing with fans...

For me it depends on how good it is within that frame of time but it looks to be really fast paced which could be a bad sign for character development or make for hastily put together action scenes.

If they can capture a bigger scope from the first movie, show off all the characters doing some cool stuff with their powers and interacting, have at least some satisfying Dr. Doom appearance or usage as well as a well progressed plot (without holes) then it should be a fun romp.

 

[Kelly]

Not the one to point fingers but it's the post under yours

why didn't you quote it....

 

[Ryo Jin]

Lazy, too used to using Quick Reply and not bothering with brackets.

 

[Excel]

92 minutes? WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

 

[Kelly]

Lazy, too used to using Quick Reply and not bothering with brackets.

What?????? you hit the quote button underneath it....how hard is
that....its the same as hitting quick reply......

 

[Ryo Jin]

It won't let me check the box. And pressing quote brings up the advanced reply, which takes god awful long when these boards are moving slow, which is most of the time.

 

[Hunter Rider]

It won't let me check the box. And pressing quote brings up the advanced reply, which takes god awful long when these boards are moving slow, which is most of the time.

Not since the new server was installed

 

[JP]

 

[Ryo Jin]

Not since the new server was installed

Indeed, despite all those pesky downtimes

 

[Sebastos]

Exactly, it seems some people seem to think it can be done but it was barely done in the first one and that was light on action compared to this one which looks to have upped the action quiet a bit and add an even shorter runtime than the previous film and it doesn't look good for the character moments we all have been craving for.

Yeah and I guess that's a good thing, so we can get straight to the action.

 

[SweetTooth]

I'm sorry but 92 minutes is too short. I hope this is false info.

I'll still see the movie, but in the end I'll end up saying "Fun Film, but too rushed and too short".

 

[Downhere]

I'm sorry but 92 minutes is too short. I hope this is false info.

I'll still see the movie, but in the end I'll end up saying "Fun Film, but too rushed and too short".

It's pretty much confirmed...so it's not false info.

 

[YJ1]

WTF happened to 106??


My hopes just died.

Your hopes died because of an alleged 14 minutes of run time? I'm sorry but that's just silly.

However, I can't say this is encouraging news. In fact, it pisses me off as well but I'm going to try and reserve judgement. Since I liked X3, I've pretty much defended Fox. Still, someone mentioned the Daredevil Director's Cut. It can't even be argued that the theatrical cut was anywhere near as good as the director's cut. If this is the case with FF2, then I'll be disappointed. If FF2is a crisp, fun yet intelligent movie, then running time won't mean anything. We'll all see soon enough.

 

[JP]

Your hopes died because of an alleged 14 minutes of run time? I'm sorry but that's just silly.

Yes, because after 3-4 movies I've learned my lesson. 106 is too short but I was willing to withhold judgment and just ride along, but this is beyond ridiculous. It's a new low for Fox.

And to think that thanks to this film, they now have the rights to SS.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm so sick of Fox beaurocrats editing films, instead of letting the directors show their own vision.

Star Wars doesn't count, because Lucas had full control from the start.

 

[Iron Man's Dad]

I too am disappointed by this.
Other than a comedy or animated film, I don't remember any films that impressed me greatly that were 90 minutes. With the exception of Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, and The Lion King, the top 20 highest grossing domestic films are all over 2 hours. I think people really want to see a good well rounded story to be truly satisfied.

I mean from what I'm hearing the Transformers are over 2 hours. Do you mean to tell me that Dreamworks can get 2 hours of movie out of the Transformers but FOX can't get 2 hours out of the FF, SS, Doom, and Galactus combined? I've said it before, this smacks of corporate thinking in my opinion.

90 minutes, more viewings = more $.
DVD Sales = $.
DVD 1.5 Sales = more $.
90 minutes, fits nicely into a 2 hour time slot on Fox Network.

Now let me think about this, I truly do love going to the movies I really do, some movies really do deserve the BIG screen but....

A) I could either plunk down my $9.50 ti see the movie once, overpay for stale popcorn and flat soda, endure an audience with people that won't shut up, or stop kicking my seat, or turn off their cell-phone, or control their kids, to see a movie that was cut up by 25%.

Or....

B) I could wait and buy the Directors Cut DVD for $15 and see the movie as originally intended with the 25% restored footage whenever I want on my nice home theater system where the popcorn is hot and the soda (or other beverage) is fresh and I can pause to go to the bathroom if I want.

Hmmmm....

Unfortunately, I'll probably do A once, matinee though $6.50, and B. However if it was really good and over 2 hours I would probably do multipe A's as I have done in the past many times.

My $.02.

IMD