The official 3 hour petition thread

[craigaat]

I'm not part of the mainstream moviegoing audience and I personally think that anything more than 150 mins is just a bit too long.

If you want a 4+ hour movie then you'll either have to wait for a Director's Cut DVD, or the other scenario is like Kill Bill.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/062508-watchmen-movie-running-time.php

Snyder says something different here:
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/8320/tcid/1

 

[The Battousai]

I know

 

[RDK]

As has been mentioned in a brother thread, and WB wants to take scissors to the 3 hour cut of Watchmen. Anybody who has read it knows that the movie should be about 6 hours, but 3 hours will have to do. This movie cannot be shortened.

Last draft I read was around 130 pages. No way was it a 3 hour movie then. Saying it "should be" six hours is simply ridiculous. If this is an early cut, 3 hours is not unusual - but it should easily be able to be trimmed to 2' 20" or so.

 

[ZeroCorpse]

The problem is that theater owners HATE long movies, and their guild is powerful.

You see, when you pay your $10 to get in to the theater, the owners know you'll be out again in just under two hours. That means that from 11:00 AM until 11:00 PM, they can have six showings of the movie, thus earning $60 per day per, ticket seat.

If they have to host a 3-hour movie, then they can only have FOUR showings of the movie. That means they earn $40 per day, per seat. That lowers that screen's value by $20 per day, per seat.

That's ONE seat in the theater. Now, when you're talking about a theater that seats 200 people, you're talking about the difference between earning $8,000 per day (3 hour movie) versus earning $12,000 per day (2 hour movie). For a week's showings, on a blockbuster film, that's $28,000 LESS the theater will make, just because a director made a three-hour film instead of an theater-approved, industry-standard two-hour film.

Yes, it cripples creativity. Yes, it stinks. No, the studios don't care what you want. They will appease their theater owners guild no matter how many signatures you get. The only way a longer movie shows up is if the director contractually stipulates that the length of the theatrical version is up to him, or something of that nature.

You want a three-hour movie. I want a three-hour movie. The owners of Goodrich, Loews, Loeks, and every other major movie theater chain absolutely DO NOT want a three-hour movie.

 

[Anubis Raptor]

3 hours of watchmen ?

 

[Cinemaman]

Personally, I would have no problems with the running time of 150-160 minutes, as it's not always comfortable to sit there for three crazy hours, even if it's the movie you have been waiting for years.

 

[DanTheDevil]

2:40 was not too long for TDK... not that I'm saying Watchmen will be as good as TDK, although it looks promising. If they can do it justice 3 hours might not be too long. There might be some slow boring parts though....

 

[Cinemaman]

2:40 was not too long for TDK... not that I'm saying Watchmen will be as good as TDK, although it looks promising. If they can do it justice 3 hours might not be too long. There might be some slow boring parts though....

I thought TDK was 2:32

 

[DanTheDevil]

I thought TDK was 2:32

You're right, I was estimating. The official time is 2:32. My point still stands, that is a fairly long movie.

 

[The Battousai]

It didn't really feel long when watching it

 

[Cinemaman]

You're right, I was estimating. The official time is 2:32. My point still stands, that is a fairly long movie.

Can't say it's a long movie. I hate when such films are done in maximum 2 hours (Jumper, Hancock), so to me 150 mins seem to be a standard.

 

[ant3ros]

2:32 is long, but that didn't hinder TDK. It all depends on the editing and how good the movie is whether or not it actually feels that long. I think WB is more lenient than Marvel, so even if they cut Watchmen short, I'm sure it won't be too devastating.