Nell2ThaIzzay said:
I must say, I find this over-reaction to the running time to be nothing short of appauling.
Okay, so first of all, let's all step down off of our pedastals and realize that we are fans, not film makers. Let us also realize that despite what we think we know, in the end, it is just that; what we think we know. We don't know jack **** about how the story arcs in this movie are going to play out. We don't know jack **** about how the different arcs are going to connect together. And, despite contrary belief, we have absolutley no idea how long this movie needs to be.
Yes we do have an idea. According to Avi Arad, bigger than X-men 1 and X-men 2. According to all the people a1ant is talking to its EPIC! More emotional, more action packed, and more dramatic. I find it hard to believe that can be done in a film that's shorter than the first movie.
Now that that is out of the way, how about a little defense for the real film makers... whatever the running time of this movie, it will not be mandated by Fox. Fox did not mandate a certain edit of this film... everything filmed will be in the final release of the movie, save for I believe one 30 second scene. This film isn't being edited down to meet a certain runtime, nor is it being edited down so that Fox has a lot of bonus deleted scenes for a special edition DVD. The script was written, the story was laid out, and it was filmed. And however much film that was is how much film was needed to tell this tale.
How do you know? This was a rushed train-wreck production. This running time we are hearing is comparable to just about every other Marvel Comic book movie they've released EXCEPT X-men 2.
I never suggest it was edited down to meet a certain run time. I'm simply suggesting this is the run time Fox wanted from the start. A shorter movie.
X2 was 2.05 without credits. And what people fail to realize, is that about 15 minutes, or so of that, was only added on because of the whole Phoenix arc. If that wasn't added, the X-Men could have just left Alkali Lake after saving Xavier, headed back to the mansion, and it would have probably run around a 1.45 - 1.50 mark. That movie had a lot going on. X-Men 3 isn't the first movie of the franchise to have a lot going on.
I'm not buying this distinction. The Phoenix arc needed to be there as it sets up the next movie. You can't just start removing integral character/plot arcs out of the movie to suit your argument.
Second of all, X-Men 3 has a luxury that X-Men didn't; the characters are already established. Save for a couple characters here or there, no time needs to be spent on development. We already know who these characters are. Would X-Men have been better if it had all those deleted scenes? In my opinion, absolutley. But that movie also had the task of introducing hardcore fans and casual movie-goers alike into this world, and to these characters. X-Men 3 does not have to do that. Our refresher course is going to be the Danger Room sequence. 2 birds with one stone; getting the audience reaquanted with these characters, on top of giving us an amazing action sequence (and adding a feature we've been wanting all along, the Danger Room).
Once again I've already debunked this argument. X-men 2 had already established the characters as well.
Don't give me this no time needs to be spent on development crap. Yes it does. They are already established but the characters need to continue to develop and grow. Just like Rogue, Iceman, and others did in the second movie and will continue to do in the third.
This is a sloppy defense. Why does X-men 3 not need to do this? Oh right, its a rushed train-wreck movie with a rushed, train-wreck production schedule. Meaning? NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!
Disregarding all of this, Avi Arad says this is an even BIGGER movie than the second one. We can see there are tons more characters and apparently according to everyone A LOT more going on than the last 2. So they can do all that in that short amount of time?
Simon Kinberg even addressed the run time issue in regards to Fantastic 4, stating that it was ultimatley a kid's movie, therefore runtime was a factor. He stated that X-Men 3 would be cut to make the best movie.
The Incredibles was a kids movie too, but how long was that? Hmm . . . 115 minutes, the longest CG animated film of all time. Also longer than X-men, Daredevil, Elektra, and what was that? A KIDS MOVIE CALLED FANTASTIC FOUR.
There has been no evidence what-so-ever of studio interferance on this project. Only fanboy *****ing and moaning from people like TheVileOne saying "this is the same studio that brought us Daredevil and Fantastic 4" (2 movies that I happened to enjoy, mind you), but they forget to realize that Fox is also the same studio that brought the likes of Titanic, Cast Away, Road to Perdition, Fight Club, Independence Day, and tons of other great films.
Titanic, Cast Away, Road To Perdition, and Fight Club were NOT Marvel Comic book movies. That's why I cited the others. I was pointing out Fox's track record and running times on previous Marvel Comic book based adaptations to movies.
I'd say if the running time is what it apparently is, that's a pretty good symbol of how the studio wanted it to turn out.
And even more relevant than examples on either side of the coin, this is the studio responsible for X-Men and X2. ***** and moan all you want about how the studio tried to "sabotage" the movies... they still shelled out the dough to make this movie, in a time when comic book movies weren't at their peak, to say the least, and followed up with a sequel. Fox set a release date about 2 years in advance for X-Men 3, so that would have been before Singer left for Superman Returns, so all the talk about a release date to beat Singer out is just utter garbage. And for something like this, waiting around isn't an option. There are a lot of actors out there, who have lives outside of 'X-Men', who can't just stop everything else in their lives because X-Men 3 is being made now. And waiting too long will kill the interest in the series. People won't care if there is a 5 year gap between movies. They'll think that it's just a desperate attempt to juice some cash off of a name.
Yeah and the major creative forces behind X-men 1 and 2? Have nothing to do with this movie. Tom DeSanto? Gone. Bryan Singer? Gone. David Hayter? Gone. Dougherty and Harris? Gone.
Instead we have the writer of XXX 2.
This is nothing but over reaction over something petty. We're not the ones in the know about this story, we only assume to know. We're not the professionals being paid the big bucks to tell this story. Fanboys need to step down off their pedastel, and let the professionals do their job. Enjoy the finished product, or don't. But this over-reaction over the running time, of all things, is absurd. And now we're calling for a possible boycott from Fox if things don't go your way? Sorry, I'm not convinced.
I'm not calling boycott of Fox. I'm simply saying, I'm not surprised if this is the actual running time of the movie. It's exactly what I expected from this train-wreck, rushed production.
Contrary to the arguement presented by those who have nothing better to do than to ***** and get after anyone who is the least bit optimistic, Fox is capable of making quality entertainment. In fact, I find an abundance of my TV and movie entertainment to come from Fox, in some way, shape, or form. And I will not boycott over a run time. I will not boycott the good things they do, because of something bad they may have done. And I highly doubt that X-Men 3 is going to be some crap fest of a movie because of a runtime.
It won't be a crap-fest because of a runtime. It will be a crapfest because it was a rushed train-wreck with a LCD-quality Hollywood director.
