Runtime confirmed by Fox: 92 minutes!

[Downhere]

Or at least the extended as an option. Of course that doesnt' make finanical sense. You release the regular version first. If it sells well you make the diretors cut and wait for FF3 to use the new film as a marketing tool to sell the expanded FF2 DVD. It's all about the money. Best thing to do is just rent the regular version and then buy the extended one.

Or skip all of them...at this rate I hope F4-2 underperforms just to get the message across to Fox that you can't chop up a movie and expect the fans to eat it up.

I really wish Fox would have never gotten any of the Marvel properties, all they know how to do is micro manage all their superhero films.

 

[MattC]

Ok. I know we have people on these boards who have insights into the behind the scenes of a movie studio. I have never gotten a clear answer to this question. Who says what stays, and what goes when they edit a movie ? Who is involved, and who makes the finial dicision ? Then we will know who to blame. Is it Avi ? Winters ? Story ? Fox ? Who ?

I think it is pretty much all of them lol It is a collaborative effort, and they each have some level of authority in terms of what makes the final cut of the film. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I get.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Lots of chefs in the kitchen. They want to make a film that's fun to watch and make money...but they want to maximize the box office potential in the first week or two. The more screens the better. Not that 92 minutes or 110 minutes would make a damn bit of difference. They made their final cut and it made sense to them. Let's see what happens. This is a action/comedy. A fun type of film that the little kids will also be flocking too. They're not just catering to die hard FF fans. They have to also keep the attention span of 10 year olds in mind. Again 92 minutes is enough if they did it right. It would be just enough to feel like a feature length film and it wouldn't be too long to stop the young kids from going back to see it again and again. It's a thrill ride. They go by fast sometimes but they're fun.

 

[wobbly]

An hour and a half is fine by me. Honeslty guys wouldn't you rather have a highly polished very well made 92 minute film than a boring overbloated film that just has filler to extend it's runtime to make a few thousand militant fans happy. Longer running time does not always mean better, and 92 minutes doesn't mean it won't be an exciting fun entertaining ride. I'm sure a good action films has been made before that was 92 minutes or less. Jeez.

I'd rather be left wanting more than wanting to go home.

How about you offer another option other than instantly equating a longer run-time to the extreme of being 'overbloated' 'militant' appeasing 'filler'?

See, for many (and I don't just mean us few thousand militants ) a story with so many main characters (we have SIX here, not including Galactus) and a cracking yarn to tell (remember this combines three classic stories from the books: The coming of Galactus, Doom stealing the Surfer's power plus the wedding of Reed & Sue) almost certainly needs some time to do it well. 2 hours would be about right, 92 minutes is pushing it very uneasilly.

Or to take a leaf from your book, and offer just the one extreme alternative option, would you prefer a 2 hour long well told, finely edited developed story with fleshed out characterisations or some quick flash bang wallop tripe that rushes everything to the point where little makes any sense, we don't give a monkey's about the characters one way or another and the mercifully brief mess is forgotten with as soon as you've finished your popcorn?

btw- that extreme isn't what I think we will get as the visuals alone will make many aspects of this film memorable. But...I do get the feeling the most memorable thing about the story will be us thinking (again) what might have been...

 

[Advanced Dark]

Or skip all of them...at this rate I hope F4-2 underperforms just to get the message across to Fox that you can't chop up a movie and expect the fans to eat it up.

I really wish Fox would have never gotten any of the Marvel properties, all they know how to do is micro manage all their superhero films.

Marvel didn't have a choice at the time. Fox only has the X-Men and FF franchises in reality. New Regency has Daredevil/Elektra...until next year. He he. I can assure you FF will not make less than the first film. That's all the Fox cares about...it must make the same or more than the 1st which it most certainly will do. It looks so much superior on every level and the buzz on the net is not negative like the first film.

 

[Advanced Dark]

It would make it seem better if the credit sequences were cool and they had some sort of gag reel or bloopers with the end credits. I've been begging Tim Story on myspace to add a gag reel with the credits. This isn't X-Men. Have some fun with it.

 

[Downhere]

Marvel didn't have a choice at the time. Fox only has the X-Men and FF franchises in reality. New Regency has Daredevil/Elektra...until next year. He he. I can assure you FF will not make less than the first film. That's all the Fox cares about...it must make the same or more than the 1st which it most certainly will do. It looks so much superior on every level and the buzz on the net is not negative like the first film.

And that is the sad thing, it will make a lot of money which just sends a message to Fox that anything they spew out will make money. So, basically, Fox will continue to churn out superhero films that are mindless, fun (hopefully in the case of F4-2), soulless films that have no heart because the movie must be fast paced to keep the attention of the kiddies.

 

[highguard]

I agree.....as I said in the first forum, after the first movie..........first time I blame Fox.........second time I blame Story.......

BUT as I stated just above in this thread.....

My hope is that even with this time frame we get a good solid movie.........I would like to walk out of that theatre saying......great movie......and never once think about the time frame.....

Hold on........

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Ok that denial thing is starting to take.

Thanks Albafan I needed that.

And now I know that this film can still knock my socks off and be the classic that I was hoping for and ummm..............

Um.... It looks like I am going to need some time and some rest to fully recover.......


May take a day or two.

Whatever of course I will be there on June 15th to see my Fantastic Four.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ No it's not. The first film made alot of money and they clearly used it to improve the next film and because of that we the fans get to see The Silver Surfer in action on the big screen! That's awesome no matter what the runtime. We take too many things for granted. Forget the fanboy mindset and remember the studios are trying to balance the appeal between the fans and the public.

 

[Carp Man]

I think it is pretty much all of them lol It is a collaborative effort, and they each have some level of authority in terms of what makes the final cut of the film. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I get.

I can't picture Story sitting there, with his masterpiece saying, yea cut this, cut this, yea that's a good idea, cut this, cut that. I would think he would be pushing to keep as much as possible in. I guess in the end the actors, and director realize, that's the way it is. I wouldn't be happy, seeing all my hard work left on the chop shop floor.

 

[Kelly]

I can't picture Story sitting there, with his masterpiece saying, yea cut this, cut this, yea that's a good idea, cut this, cut that. I would think he would be pushing to keep as much as possible in. I guess in the end the actors, and director realize, that's the way it is. I wouldn't be happy, seeing all my hard work left on the chop shop floor.

Not all of them......some keep quiet about it in the commentary, some speak up in the commentary, and then get talked over by some making excuses for it..........but no.....in the end not ALL actors believe thats the way it is....or should be....

 

[Downhere]

^ No it's not. The first film made alot of money and they clearly used it to improve the next film and because of that we the fans get to see The Silver Surfer in action on the big screen! That's awesome no matter what the runtime. We take too many things for granted. Forget the fanboy mindset and remember the studios are trying to balance the appeal between the fans and the public.

Many other studios have balanced the appeal between the fans and the public and made films that actually tell a story with character development along with great action sequences. The truth of the matter is all the great superhero flicks have been longer than 90 minutes. I think that shows a trend here.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The only possible reason I can think of is they have so little faith in the product they want as many screenings as is humanly possible in as short a time as is humanly possible: Go for that quick buck rather than take a chance that an extended version might have some legs.

Now the film might well be very good and do just fine if the producers showed some spine and allowed the film to run at a time that suits the scope of it's content (and for this story near 2 hours would suit), but cutting it up to fit a pre-requisite 'magic' time slot does usually result in the kind of mess that was the first film, with plot holes the size of Galactus' anus (Doom's business going bust for no clear reason, stealing from himself, etc) and characters so lightweight you wonder why they even bothered putting them in there at all (Alicia).

Why do you think there's additional stuff they cut out?
And a short straightforward kind of story, with few characters and subplots has a limited risk of having many plot holes.
As I said, having to deal with characters with so many FX scenes (think about it, Silver Surfer is a walking and acting visual FX) they tried to reduce to minimum the page count and consequently the shooting days and the minutes of effects on screen from day 1.

 

[Carp Man]

^ No it's not. The first film made alot of money and they clearly used it to improve the next film and because of that we the fans get to see The Silver Surfer in action on the big screen! That's awesome no matter what the runtime. We take too many things for granted. Forget the fanboy mindset and remember the studios are trying to balance the appeal between the fans and the public.

It's still going to make a lot of money, and the kids will eat the Surfer up. I'm not going to prejudge it, but the runtime is disapointing, but hey if done right it can still work. The Surfer is going to be awsome, and Doom looks great. The Thing is trimmed down. It looks sharp, and clear. The sets appear to be better and polished. I still think it will be the suprise of the summer.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Yeah but most of those don't make any money with a few exceptions and much higher budgets. Look at some of the big dissapointments this year like Grindhouse, and while I loved Spider-Man 3 and Spidey 3 is going to make the most for the franchise Worldwide...it's gonna make about 70 million less than the first Spidey film with higher ticket prices domestic. People's #1 complaint...the runtime. You not only have to balance the appeal but think of the money as well...that's why they're in the business.

 

[wobbly]

I can't picture Story sitting there, with his masterpiece saying, yea cut this, cut this, yea that's a good idea, cut this, cut that. I would think he would be pushing to keep as much as possible in. I guess in the end the actors, and director realize, that's the way it is. I wouldn't be happy, seeing all my hard work left on the chop shop floor.

I doubt Story has much say in the final cut at all. He's not nearly a big enough name yet to negotiate that honor from a studio.

 

[Retroman]

Weeks ago i saw a repeat of an episode of Sunday Morning Shootout, Amy Pascal (head of Sony Pictures) was one of the guests and she had some things to say about the editing.

Here's a couple qoutes from the same show that were published in the hollywood reporter:

What really gives studio heads migraines are the A-list directors with final cut and backend gross who not only command top-dollar fees but want A-list stars and mega-budgets to go with them.

Top talent have become accustomed to demanding all the perks of the studio gravy train. And the studios are like indulgent parents who have been spoiling their gifted children for so long that they don't know how to handle them when they get out of control.

Last year, Amy Pascal, the chairman of the Sony Motion Picture Group, complained about final-cut directors on AMC's weekly film industry show "Sunday Morning Shootout." "They have too much power," she said, adding that once a director makes a profitable movie, the studios tend to reward a director with final cut: "It is what happens. You make a movie with a major director, you have to give him final cut or you're not doing the movie. If the movie doesn't work, you're screwed. They bull**** you, you fall for it. They tell you how long it's going to be, tell you the stars you don't want, tell you the budget you don't want to hear. You start saying the things you want to hear. You paid for them and gave them the movie, and that's the movie you get."

My guess is that Tim Story does not have the coveted final cut even after the success of the first movie.

 

[Advanced Dark]

I dont' think there was enough footage to cut out to make a huge difference. Most of the extended cuts with a few exceptions like LOTR have like 5-15 minutes of additional footage on average. It's not like they cut 30 minutes of useable footage out that made the movie flow better. LOL No way.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Yeah like Peter Jackson who did so well with LOTR and then pretty much ruined King Kong. I know alot of you enjoyed that film but talk about a movie that was too long with useless footage. Nice find Retro.

 

[Downhere]

^ Yeah but most of those don't make any money with a few exceptions and much higher budgets. Look at some of the big dissapointments this year like Grindhouse, and while I loved Spider-Man 3 and Spidey 3 is going to make the most for the franchise Worldwide...it's gonna make about 70 million less than the first Spidey film with higher ticket prices domestic. People's #1 complaint...the runtime. You not only have to balance the appeal but think of the money as well...that's why they're in the business.

Spidey was released in a month where 3 huge movies opened and looks to make the most out of the big three. Also, it will end up with 15 % less than the last film which isn't that big a deal as the second was 10 % less than the first one, domestically speaking. The runtime, I know many people who said it was too short because of everything that was going on in the story. And yes, the reason the studio's make movies is for the money, but there have been many films with long runtimes that have made a great deal of cash. And we are not asking for a 3 hour F4 movie, just something in the 110-120 minute range. That would give the movie time to breathe and have character development. 92 minutes is a freakin' insult to the fans I say. I mean, we are talking about 92 minutes with credits! That's around 83-85 minutes without credits. That's a cartoon length.

 

[Downhere]

I dont' think there was enough footage to cut out to make a huge difference. Most of the extended cuts with a few exceptions like LOTR have like 5-15 minutes of additional footage on average. It's not like they cut 30 minutes of useable footage out that made the movie flow better. LOL No way.

The extended cut of F4 will have 20 minutes of extra footage...that's a big chunk that was cut from the movie.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Yeah but have you seen that 20 minutes and does it make the movie better? 20 minutes is a good chunk but that is NOT average and you know that.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

^ No it's not. The first film made alot of money and they clearly used it to improve the next film and because of that we the fans get to see The Silver Surfer in action on the big screen! That's awesome no matter what the runtime. We take too many things for granted. Forget the fanboy mindset and remember the studios are trying to balance the appeal between the fans and the public.

Don't worry, even if the movie bombs (and it won't) your Marvel shares won't lose too much in value.
So you can quit this pathetic preventive defense.

 

[wobbly]

Why do you think there's additional stuff they cut out?
And a short straightforward kind of story, with few characters and subplots has a limited risk of having many plot holes.
As I said, having to deal with characters with so many FX scenes (think about it, Silver Surfer is a walking and acting visual FX) they tried to reduce to minimum the page count and consequently the shooting days and the minutes of effects on screen from day 1.

I think they have cut a lot because they did exactly that with FF1 (which was a simpler story when all is said and done) hence the extended DVD on sale soon for those willing to pay out (yet again) for that first film.

See, you are assuming extra time means more cost so they have only shot 92 minutes worth of film. But I tell you now I'd bet my left nut they have shot more but the 'filler', as some here might call it, has been cut to get this film down to that magic time-span we know Fox has no small affinity for.

And in a years time...Another extended version out on DVD for those daft enough to pay for it....Sorry for being so cynical, but after X-Men 1.5, Directors cut of Daredevil, alternative DVD versions of X3, now an extended version of FF1...Imo, it's naive not to see what Fox's game is here, and more fool those who fall for it.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Spidey was released in a month where 3 huge movies opened and looks to make the most out of the big three. Also, it will end up with 15 % less than the last film which isn't that big a deal as the second was 10 % less than the first one, domestically speaking. The runtime, I know many people who said it was too short because of everything that was going on in the story. And yes, the reason the studio's make movies is for the money, but there have been many films with long runtimes that have made a great deal of cash. And we are not asking for a 3 hour F4 movie, just something in the 110-120 minute range. That would give the movie time to breathe and have character development. 92 minutes is a freakin' insult to the fans I say. I mean, we are talking about 92 minutes with credits! That's around 83-85 minutes without credits. That's a cartoon length.

The runtime of Spidey 3 was too short? That's a typo right? I'm a fan and 92 minutes doesn't insult me. I enjoy plenty of movies that are an hour and a half and enjoy those that are longer.