The Run Time Length Thread

[chaseter]

yeah i know what you mean, as long as the movie is at least 2 hours, im good

With Fox, I would also be happy if it was 2 hours. I expect for the worse and say 1:45 and the best would be 2:15

 

[TNC9852002]

I don't think we have gotten official word as to how long this movie will be as I am sure they are still editing the film.

What would you think the run time for this movie should be? How long do you think it will be? I just hope it is at or near the 2 hour mark. I don't think they will go over 2 hours but I don't want a 90 minute flick like X3 was But with Fox, you know they will muck with the run time to get more showings in.

Totally biased and BS comments notwithstanding, I'll assume that the movie will be around 110 minutes.

Ok, I'll just say this, X3's running time, from what I've seen, had very little to do with any particular person from FOX studios. The deleted scenes from X3 was nearly 20 minutes long and we know now that the reasons why they were deleted were entirely up to the director and writers. So, from reasoning, a shorter movie was purely under their control, and not particularly the studio. We also already knew that Brett Ratner publically has gone out many times stating that he has ADD and really has problems with longer movies. So, there's where the blame should go to.

It's strange...I didn't hear anyone complaining to FOX for X2's 130 minute running time and bringing up the "shorter time for more showings" logic. As if they were a different studio 5 years ago.

I've work at a movie theater for quite a time and let me assure you, there is no narrow window determining the number of showtimes a movie can have, due to open/close standards across any particular movie theater. So, 15-20 additional minutes of film typically makes no difference in how many showtimes a theater can fit in. I'd say, around the 2 hour 15 minute mark is where it starts to become very difficult for theaters to accommodate maximum showings. Movies near or below the 1 hour 30 minute mark are usually the only movies that could fit in one more show, but these are usually G or PG movies since they typically have shorter preshow advertisements and trailers.

Another very important factor in what determines a number of showtimes is the number of prints a theater receives, which also has NOTHING to do with the running length of the movie, but actually is generated by tracking numbers. Movies like TDK, that were tracking exceptionally well, may send a theater up to six prints of the movie, whereas a low tracking movie like Not Easily Broken will only send a theater one or two (depending on the region/demographic) or maybe none at all.

-TNC

 

[Peter McCabe]

Totally biased and BS comments notwithstanding, I'll assume that the movie will be around 110 minutes.

Ok, I'll just say this, X3's running time, from what I've seen, had very little to do with any particular person from FOX studios. The deleted scenes from X3 was nearly 20 minutes long and we know now that the reasons why they were deleted were entirely up to the director and writers. So, from reasoning, a shorter movie was purely under their control, and not particularly the studio. We also already knew that Brett Ratner publically has gone out many times stating that he has ADD and really has problems with longer movies. So, there's where the blame should go to.

It's strange...I didn't hear anyone complaining to FOX for X2's 130 minute running time and bringing up the "shorter time for more showings" logic. As if they were a different studio 5 years ago.

I've work at a movie theater for quite a time and let me assure you, there is no narrow window determining the number of showtimes a movie can have, due to open/close standards across any particular movie theater. So, 15-20 additional minutes of film typically makes no difference in how many showtimes a theater can fit in. I'd say, around the 2 hour 15 minute mark is where it starts to become very difficult for theaters to accommodate maximum showings. Movies near or below the 1 hour 30 minute mark are usually the only movies that could fit in one more show, but these are usually G or PG movies since they typically have shorter preshow advertisements and trailers.

Another very important factor in what determines a number of showtimes is the number of prints a theater receives, which also has NOTHING to do with the running length of the movie, but actually is generated by tracking numbers. Movies like TDK, that were tracking exceptionally well, may send a theater up to six prints of the movie, whereas a low tracking movie like Not Easily Broken will only send a theater one or two (depending on the region/demographic) or maybe none at all.

-TNC

Great post.

People need to get over this ridiculous grudge with fox.

Revenge of The Sith was long, X2 was long, Australia was long.

X3 was what it was because that's what the FILM MAKERS wanted it to be.

this movie NEEDS to be long, covering 150 years of history. yea the climax probably takes place in the course of a few days after Wolverine is on the run from Stryker, but this is gonna need at least a SOLID 2 hours.

2 hours, 25 minutes would be a dream come true, and it COULD/CAN happen.

 

[terry78]

With these big event movies they also seem to have a habit of attaching not four, but about 6 trailers to it as well, so they need to balance that **** out.

 

[TheVileOne]

Why should people get over the grudge with Fox after they ruined X-men 3 not to mention lied to SHH about the runtime?

 

[Peter McCabe]

Why should people get over the grudge with Fox after they ruined X-men 3 not to mention lied to SHH about the runtime?

X3 wasn't ruined, it was just shot in a way fans didn't like. it made alotta cash, apparently from non-fans, but it did what fox needed it to do: BANK.

from a non-fan perspective, its a good movie.

If the studio lied to you, get over it. it dont matter in the end.

dont let a bit of mis-information get in the way of expecting good things from other films by talented actors/film-makers that happen to be fox movies.

 

[TNC9852002]

Oh, there's a lot of things wrong with X3. It was a good movie, but I think it was definitely disappointing, but many fans have blown it WAAAAAY out of proportion. I also don't believe ANY particular studio, person, actor, writer, or anyone deserves to be so mortally condemned after any time they help make a movie decision that may have been disappointing. These include our guys like Bryan Singer, Frank Miller, George Lucas, Brett Ratner...etc

I just don't think it's that damn important.

The thing I don't like the most is the idea that any typical fan or movie goer can understand everything it takes to make a movie and take a handful of quotes and news articles and decide who they should take their hate out on, when they weren't actually there during the filmmaking to understand how complex the movie making business actually is. I remember Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg especially making comments such as these. I can agree with them on that much.

I truly believe they felt that made the best movie that they could under the constraints that they had. Sure, anyone could interpret the intentions of those constraints as nefarious and selfish, but certainly a lot of them could've been beyond anyone's control, even the studio's.

-TNC

 

[X-Maniac]

^^^ I totally agree. When I say anything like this, I get accused of being 'condescending' just for spelling out the facts.

X3 gets far too much hate on here. You get people asking 'how did A get to B' when no-one questions how, in TDK, the Joker managed to organise the kidnap of Dent and Dawes, stitch a telephone inside a prisoner and plant explosives all over the city (and why Batman didn't at least carry a pepper spray to fend off dogs...). All that stuff is never questioned, no one harps on about it for ever and ever....

I really like X3, for all its deficiencies. It has terrific visual setpieces that more than compensate for any fanboy grumbling.

A friend of mine recently saw it, borrowing the DVD from me along with some other films. He said: "It's the best of the three, a simple story that is well told and flows nicely." His only complaint was asking why they didn't throw Leech at Phoenix to depower/defeat her at the end, it's the only 'negative' he could offer.

I would, however, love to see an extended edition of X3 that inserts some of the better deleted scenes.

 

[TheVileOne]

X3 wasn't ruined, it was just shot in a way fans didn't like. it made alotta cash, apparently from non-fans, but it did what fox needed it to do: BANK.

Not quite that much considering they spent about more on it than it made in the US domestic BO.

from a non-fan perspective, its a good movie.

The non-fan critics that reviewed the movie totally trashed it.

If the studio lied to you, get over it. it dont matter in the end.

I never believed their lies. But SHH and people here did.

dont let a bit of mis-information get in the way of expecting good things from other films by talented actors/film-makers that happen to be fox movies.

Their track record is hardly impeccable.

 

[X-Maniac]

The non-fan critics that reviewed the movie totally trashed it.

That just isn't true. A look at RT will show mixed responses, but it was not 'totally trashed' at all. There are positive comments among the critics' views.

 

[TheVileOne]

Positive comments were in the minority.

Fox does not deserve the fans' trust no matter how talented the actors and filmmakers are.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I think the film should be as long as X-Men 1 or X-Men 2, but if it isn't, I won't be mad. Just as long as it has a good running time.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Not quite that much considering they spent about more on it than it made in the US domestic BO.

not true, i read on various sites that it cost somewhere around 200 mil and made 234 mil. that means they made their cash back and some more. then when you add the worldwide numbers: BANKED.

The non-fan critics that reviewed the movie totally trashed it.

Critics trash everything comic book based, hopefully after TDK's oscar run they'll play nice.

Fox does not deserve the fans' trust no matter how talented the actors and filmmakers are.

maaaaan, you need a therapist t:

chill out with those emotions, its not like you work in the film industry and fox fired you from a movie they were producing.

 

[BMM]

not true, i read on various sites that it cost somewhere around 200 mil and made 234 mil. that means they made their cash back and some more. then when you add the worldwide numbers: BANKED.

That's not how the box office works.

Critics trash everything comic book based, hopefully after TDK's oscar run they'll play nice.

That's not true at all.

 

[Peter McCabe]

That's not how the box office works.

then how exactly does it work??? last time i checked, making back your budget and more is a good thing

and WOLVERINE is basically the result of X3's success. if X3 tanked, this movie would not have been made.

That's not true at all.

you must not read reviews. alotta critics crapped on singer's movies just because they were comic book movies. they talk about them like they're kids movies that are not supposed to explore serious themes. I hate that.

 

[TheVileOne]

Critics trash everything comic book based, hopefully after TDK's oscar run they'll play nice.

Wrong and utter lies. Look at the tomato meters for X-men 2, Spider-man, Spider-man 2, Iron Man, Hellboy 2, and Batman Begins sometime. Oh and all those movies came out BEFORE The Dark Knight.

Try better next time.

not true, i read on various sites that it cost somewhere around 200 mil and made 234 mil. that means they made their cash back and some more. then when you add the worldwide numbers: BANKED.

That was the reported production budget. Distribution and marketing is a whole separate budget. Plus, that's $234 million that doesn't go back to Fox 100%. A chunk of that goes to the theatres.

 

[BMM]

then how exactly does it work??? last time i checked, making back your budget and more is a good thing

It’s complicated, but in simple terms, I believe for every dollar spent on a movie, it needs to earn roughly two dollars at the box office to break even.

and WOLVERINE is basically the result of X3's success. if X3 tanked, this movie would not have been made.

Doubtful. Given the market for superhero movies, Fox isn’t going to so easily forgo its slice of the pie. Also, perhaps there’s a reason we’re hearing about cheaper spin-offs, like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, instead of X-Men 4. Regardless, I doubt Fox would have stopped making X-Men movies, as the property had already proven lucrative.

you must not read reviews. alotta critics crapped on singer's movies just because they were comic book movies. they talk about them like they're kids movies that are not supposed to explore serious themes. I hate that.

I read enough reviews to know that critics “trash” everything, regardless of genre. If a movie is made, there will be a critic to trash it even if most people love it. I read enough reviews to know that I can go to rottentomatoes.com right now and find higher ratings or more positive reviews for X-Men, X2, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Iron Man than every movie on the front page other than Slumdog Millionaire. Those superhero movies are rated higher and receive more positive reviews than a lot of, if not most, movies released every single year.

In so far as running time is concerned, what I hope Fox takes away from movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight is that a superhero movie can be over 2 hours and do very well in theaters.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Wrong and utter lies. Look at the tomato meters for X-men 2, Spider-man, Spider-man 2, Iron Man, Hellboy 2, and Batman Begins sometime. Oh and all those movies came out BEFORE The Dark Knight.

uh, buddy, as I said earlier, they treat comic book movies like cardboard. They dont address them like they wood something like Milk and Benjamin Button.

That's what I meant by "trash".

*Dark Knight will be the FIRST comic book movie to go the distance, by being a contender in the oscars this february.

That was the reported production budget. Distribution and marketing is a whole separate budget. Plus, that's $234 million that doesn't go back to Fox 100%. A chunk of that goes to the theatres.

once again, X3 is the reason we got a 200 million dollar movie called Wolverine coming out in 4 months.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Doubtful. Given the market for superhero movies, Fox isn’t going to so easily forgo its slice of the pie. Also, perhaps there’s a reason we’re hearing about cheaper spin-offs, like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, instead of X-Men 4. Regardless, I doubt Fox would have stopped making X-Men movies, as the property had already proven lucrative.

they did crap out on the fantastic four after the second one bombed.

the first one worked, so they made a second one.

the second one tanked, so game over.

X3 banked and here we have Wolverine. cheaper than an X4 but still 200 mil.

 

[BMM]

they did crap out on the fantastic four after the second one bombed.

the first one worked, so they made a second one.

the second one tanked, so game over.

X3 banked and here we have Wolverine. cheaper than an X4 but still 200 mil.

The Fantastic Four franchise was never as well received as the X-Men franchise, financially or otherwise. Unlike the Fantastic Four franchise, the X-Men franchise had produced two very successful movies in which the fanbase and revenue streams continued to grow (a lot). Even if X-Men 3 underperformed, it's doubtful Fox would simply abandon all of that and risk losing the rights to the property.

 

[chaseter]

Totally biased and BS comments notwithstanding, I'll assume that the movie will be around 110 minutes.

Ok, I'll just say this, X3's running time, from what I've seen, had very little to do with any particular person from FOX studios. The deleted scenes from X3 was nearly 20 minutes long and we know now that the reasons why they were deleted were entirely up to the director and writers. So, from reasoning, a shorter movie was purely under their control, and not particularly the studio. We also already knew that Brett Ratner publically has gone out many times stating that he has ADD and really has problems with longer movies. So, there's where the blame should go to.

It's strange...I didn't hear anyone complaining to FOX for X2's 130 minute running time and bringing up the "shorter time for more showings" logic. As if they were a different studio 5 years ago.

I've work at a movie theater for quite a time and let me assure you, there is no narrow window determining the number of showtimes a movie can have, due to open/close standards across any particular movie theater. So, 15-20 additional minutes of film typically makes no difference in how many showtimes a theater can fit in. I'd say, around the 2 hour 15 minute mark is where it starts to become very difficult for theaters to accommodate maximum showings. Movies near or below the 1 hour 30 minute mark are usually the only movies that could fit in one more show, but these are usually G or PG movies since they typically have shorter preshow advertisements and trailers.

Another very important factor in what determines a number of showtimes is the number of prints a theater receives, which also has NOTHING to do with the running length of the movie, but actually is generated by tracking numbers. Movies like TDK, that were tracking exceptionally well, may send a theater up to six prints of the movie, whereas a low tracking movie like Not Easily Broken will only send a theater one or two (depending on the region/demographic) or maybe none at all.

-TNC

Do you not forget Kinberg and Penn being told to cut out this and change stuff in the writing process? Do you not recently remember Rothman ordering an entire set to be painted over? Do you not remember the Babylon A.D. crap? Fox is a horrible studio like it or not. Kinberg, Penn, and even Ratner have apologized for the way the movie was treated and what was delivered to us.

It is simple mathematics...if a movie is shorter, it can be seen more times in one business day per screen which means more money per day. X3 had bad legs for an obvious reason...it wasn't a good movie and it wasn't on par with its predecessors.

 

[chaseter]

X3 wasn't ruined, it was just shot in a way fans didn't like. it made alotta cash, apparently from non-fans, but it did what fox needed it to do: BANK.

from a non-fan perspective, its a good movie.

If the studio lied to you, get over it. it dont matter in the end.

dont let a bit of mis-information get in the way of expecting good things from other films by talented actors/film-makers that happen to be fox movies.

Ahhh yes, it made bank so that means it was a great film X3 had bad legs for a reason. TDK had great legs for a reason. Non-fans don't see the movie over and over again...fans do and guess who was let down and why that played into its bad critical rating and its scrutiny from the fans.

Critics trash everything comic book based, hopefully after TDK's oscar run they'll play nice.

That is one of the most blatantly wrong things I have read on here in a while. Batman Begins, TDK, Spider-Man 2, etc...says otherwise.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I cannot believe people think that Fox studios is a good studio that respects its franchises and allows creative control where it should be. Do you fu**ing people live in Bizarro World???

man you need to chill with them comments.

and you should also realize how sad your grudge for a FILM STUDIO is.

A FILM STUDIO.

my diagnosis = too much time on your hands.

 

[RED-RAIN]

i too was once on the fox bashing band-wagon, but have since realised that it was pointless for more than one reason. dont worry, everybody grows up eventually.
even the haters

 

[danoyse]

Just a reminder - this is the Wolverine forum, not the X3 forum. If you want to carry on the discussion about the endless pros and cons of that movie, take it to the X3 board.

Thank you.