The Run Time Length Thread

[dark_b]

Now tou're being silly. I never said a movie needs to be PG or PG13. I am saying that it is not what makes a movie good or bad. It is the script, director, actors, etc. Just because a movie has an R rating does not make it good{Matrix Reloaded}.

now lets get into details. you can have a good script,good director,good actors......but if the editing is bad then the whole movie could be bad. editing makes the pacing the flow. you can with the editing destroy the best acting. with editing you can destroy amazing visual scenes.
so yeah editing can destroy a movie. and so can the runtime.

and so since FOX likes to chop their movies into little pieces this doesnt look good.

AD babylon was edited like they were on drugs. like they were drunk. the same with max payne. both also short movies.


editing............very important.

 

[chaseter]

Of course not, Even Fox wouldnt be that stupid to do that. Makes no sense from the get go because X-men would have been handeled as a franchise with many sequeals, no matter who was involved. Theres no world that would have poeple jam that all into one 90 minute movie when theres so much more money to be made off of sequels, good or bad. so that "what if" doesnt play any role in the conversation.

And I do believe the most talented director and team could have handeled the pheonix saga AND the cure intermixed, in a 104 minute movie that was X3. Runtime still doesnt have anything to do with a movie being good. And if someone brings up Daredevil then thats just the case of what was decided to be edited in and out of the theatrical cut. And the team working on daredevil was not the best at all. It could have been better for a 90 minute movie.


ut either way.. discussing this doesnt have anything to do with wolverine because you cant compare runtimes of other movies to wolverines, because Wolvie is a different story, with a new director, actors, all that stuff, So it has to be judged on its own and not be based on probability. Thats really only appropriate if it was X-men 4 and Bryan singer, Brett Ratner, Tim story, or anyone who has done a Fox superhero movie would be directing .

Were you coming out of X3, or daredevil, or FF saying "wow that movie sucked because it was so short!" or were you saying that movie sucked because of the writing, script acting, directing and so on...

People didnt seem to say that about X-men 1... And people might not say that for Wolverine, as long as its GOOD.... If runtime is mentioned it would only be "gah i wanted more!" and thats...a good thing.

if its not good then shame on the team, but not the run time. Fox has the x-men right now.. If the x-men were under Marvel studios or whatever im sure everything would be better.. but right now its Fox and this is what were getting. Someday Im sure it wont be.

But for now, I love it... because I take it as a seperate interpretation of my favorite characters. I look at it in a creative way instead of "big studios Effing over fans" Im not offended in any way what so ever to what they do to Deadpool, Becasue ya love Deadpool for the comics, thats where he was born and thats where he is Deadpool. If he is interpreted differently in a movie then that should be acceptable. Especially since he' probably wont even be "Deadpool" the way we love him in this... Its his re invisioned origin.

Just like everything else. People can only do so much and make so many decisions... People have to make the decisions they think are right, and thats just the way it has to be, Wether we all agree or not, or wether its the right person for the job. There are no what ifs, or what could have been... Its what we have.. its GOOD and as long as it stays good then I have no complaints. Theres so many things to take into consideration when thinking about these things, and any arguments anyone will have is essentially pointless in the long run...

If you want a perfect X-men movie.. and ya think you could make it the way EVERYONE would love.. then thats what ya have to do.. devote your life to start a company, or buy the rights to x-men or ..whatever it takes... Thats what these people did and now they are doing what they want with it, and thats how its gonna be.

SM3 was well over two hours and had 4 huge plot arcs and guess what...it failed and it was a bad movie. It was written and directed by the same people that did the first two that were good and everyone loved. So, one of the huge things that could be attributed to its drop in quality is the run time. They couldn't even flesh out those 4 plot arcs in the run time and it decreased the quality. So, we could have either had a super long movie or they could have only used 1 or 2 plot arcs to make a good film. So no, I don't think the worlds greatest writer and director can put together a short film that properly encompasses decades of source material. I don't even think they would consider it because they are smarter than that.

 

[Spidey 2007]

SM3 was well over two hours and had 4 huge plot arcs and guess what...it failed and it was a bad movie. It was written and directed by the same people that did the first two that were good and everyone loved. So, one of the huge things that could be attributed to its drop in quality is the run time. They couldn't even flesh out those 4 plot arcs in the run time and it decreased the quality. So, we could have either had a super long movie or they could have only used 1 or 2 plot arcs to make a good film. So no, I don't think the worlds greatest writer and director can put together a short film that properly encompasses decades of source material. I don't even think they would consider it because they are smarter than that.

lol, exactly what i said starting out.. I dont think it would be a part of any conversation. i do agree with you. That was the wrong desicion for Spiderman 3.. and in general. You just cant Cram all that in no matter what run time. Even if it was longer, which movies cant go taht long. But Spiderman 3 wasnt all THAT bad... it really wasnt, some people just get on its case... They did teh best with all the crap they had to put in it. Thats why i think Spiderman 4 will be tremendously better, givin that Raimi has control back! But yea I know what you mean. either way, X3 had 2 really major plot arcs with the pheonix and Cure, that i think could have worked really well together given a better team and schedule to do so. and it could have worked better in that run time.

And I think Wolverine will be just fine because it essentially has One big Story Arc.. Wolverines Origin. It just has the supporting characters to go with it. And it has a decent director. So it has all the potential in the world to be a fantastic 90 minute movie, despite the *****ing about Deadpool.

 

[Silverglade]

I disagree that length hurt anything. Fans want as much new stuff they can get with each 3-4 year wait. I think I agree with everything else you said though.

I would only add my beefs had more to do with direction choices. Ie. having someone cry every 30 seconds, switching the death of Ben idea, and making some events really convenient. Symbiote falling right next to Spidey from space, for example. To me, Sp1 and Sp2 stayed light, fun but took itself seriously. Sp3 seemed like no one in front of the camera took much of it seriously. Bring on the bashing. lol but I did adore Spidey 2.

 

[Spidey 2007]

I disagree that length hurt anything. Fans want as much new stuff they can get with each 3-4 year wait. I think I agree with everything else you said though.

I would only add my beefs had more to do with direction choices. Ie. having someone cry every 30 seconds, switching the death of Ben idea, and making some events really convenient. Symbiote falling right next to Spidey from space, for example. To me, Sp1 and Sp2 stayed light, fun but took itself seriously. Sp3 seemed like no one in front of the camera took much of it seriously. Bring on the bashing. lol but I did adore Spidey 2.

Yea right on. I think so too. Spiderman 3 isnt so terrible, its just they wasted a good bit of time and could have spent it more on developing stories better and stuff. Leave out the symbiote stuff becasue that causes the biggest griefe. (the dancing, venom, inconvinience, all that) that should have been in a movie of its own, or with a move that doesnt have 3 other stories going on haha.

But i dont know, there are many complications and things to think about haha...

Either way its not the Case for wolverine. I want as much of a movie as anyone else, id love a 2 hour wolvie movie just because i want to see more footage and have the experience, but i dont think the run time will effect its quality. in fact the runtime will not effect it (unlesss its really like..60 minutes or shorter haha) Im going to say it will be 104-105 minutes. And thats perfectly fine. As long as the team does it RIGHT.

 

[sniktsnakt]

Yea right on. I think so too. Spiderman 3 isnt so terrible, its just they wasted a good bit of time and could have spent it more on developing stories better and stuff. Leave out the symbiote stuff becasue that causes the biggest griefe. (the dancing, venom, inconvinience, all that) that should have been in a movie of its own, or with a move that doesnt have 3 other stories going on haha.

But i dont know, there are many complications and things to think about haha...

Either way its not the Case for wolverine. I want as much of a movie as anyone else, id love a 2 hour wolvie movie just because i want to see more footage and have the experience, but i dont think the run time will effect its quality. in fact the runtime will not effect it (unlesss its really like..60 minutes or shorter haha) Im going to say it will be 104-105 minutes. And thats perfectly fine. As long as the team does it RIGHT.

I just say the longer the better, 'cause I'm going to be hanging onto every second of this movie like a man dying of thirst treasures every last drop of water.

Is that dramatic enough?

 

[Spidey 2007]

I just say the longer the better, 'cause I'm going to be hanging onto every second of this movie like a man dying of thirst treasures every last drop of water.

Is that dramatic enough?

Naw your good. This may very well be Jackmans last shot at wolvie, you never know... so im there with you haha.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I just say the longer the better, 'cause I'm going to be hanging onto every second of this movie like a man dying of thirst treasures every last drop of water.

Is that dramatic enough?

love this

 

[protocida]

Has the Run Time been revealed yet?

 

[sniktsnakt]

Has the Run Time been revealed yet?

I ask this at least twice a week, but from what I've heard . . . no one is sure yet.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[protocida]

So am I.

 

[Silverglade]

I imagine the run time and rating will be out very soon. The film premieres in 28 days... then wide release not long after.

 

[Spidey 2007]

When was X3's finally announced?... haha

Im going to bet everything it will be between 100-105 minutes

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I still don't understand how people can right off a film based on run time.

So say the film comes out, it's 90minutes, that's it, you'd completely write it off? That just seems silly to me.

Sure it would be beneficial to everyone if the film was 2-21/2hours long, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good. Same way as it being 90minutes doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

And sure people can come up with countless examples, but you know what? That don't mean ****. This film isn't one of those examples and it can't be put amongst them UNTIL it has been seen.

I understanf what you are saying, but in the last few years, 99% of the best CB movies have been around or over 2 hours. If you make a movie that has to cover a lot of ground 90 mins, its obvious to me it wont be a coherent movie and it will jump everywere with no explanation and many things unexplained and many characters under-developed, that to me indicates a lower quality movie.

I wont cite past examples of Fox ruining the source material, as you seem to know them and seem to think since TDK was made that Fox has learnt their lesson. I was hoping that to, but did you see the run-time's for Dragonball and Street Fighter? Not to mention the quality of the reviews for those movies? My friend, Fox hasnt learned a god damn thing.

 

[chaseter]

100 minutes would be dissapointing because after credits and intros...that is a sad 90 minute movie. I pray that it is at least 115 minutes. Anything below 110 and I will have zero expectations.

 

[Peter McCabe]

100 minutes would be dissapointing because after credits and intros...that is a sad 90 minute movie. I pray that it is at least 115 minutes. Anything below 110 and I will have zero expectations.

you're going wayyyyy overboard with this.

just watch the movie whether its 90 or 200 minutes and THEN make an educated conclusion about the overall film's quality.

right now all you're doing is crapping on the possibility of it being TERRIBLE if under 110 minutes - when in fact it might be AMAZING at 100 minutes, or hell even 90.

 

[FaT_tONle]

The number one issue people had with X-3 was the run time... at least up until the spoilers came out regarding certain characters and what not. So no one is going overboard with run time concerns. It's called being consistent.

 

[protocida]

you're going wayyyyy overboard with this.

just watch the movie whether its 90 or 200 minutes and THEN make an educated conclusion about the overall film's quality.

right now all you're doing is crapping on the possibility of it being TERRIBLE if under 110 minutes - when in fact it might be AMAZING at 100 minutes, or hell even 90.

Here we go again.

 

[Peter McCabe]

The number one issue people had with X-3 was the run time... at least up until the spoilers came out regarding certain characters and what not. So no one is going overboard with run time concerns. It's called being consistent.

that makes no sense at all.

this is a different movie in almost every way, it is not a sequel to X-3.

the creative team behind this is different, there are too many departures from X3 in this to use X3's flaws as ammunition against it.

Above all, the concept of deeming a movie bad or "sad" just because its under two hours is absurd.

just makes no sense at all.

 

[chaseter]

you're going wayyyyy overboard with this.

just watch the movie whether its 90 or 200 minutes and THEN make an educated conclusion about the overall film's quality.

right now all you're doing is crapping on the possibility of it being TERRIBLE if under 110 minutes - when in fact it might be AMAZING at 100 minutes, or hell even 90.

No. Right now, all you're doing is putting this movie up on a pedestal because you think it will great without taking in variables and considering history. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

 

[FaT_tONle]

that makes no sense at all.

this is a different movie in almost every way, it is not a sequel to X-3.

the creative team behind this is different, there are too many departures from X3 in this to use X3's flaws as ammunition against it.

Above all, the concept of deeming a movie bad or "sad" just because its under two hours is absurd.

just makes no sense at all.

The team has nothing to do with it because the number one issue, to my understanding, was the run time. And if that does not change significantly from X-3's runtime it will probably remain the number one issue.

 

[danoyse]

The number one issue people had with X-3 was the run time... at least up until the spoilers came out regarding certain characters and what not. So no one is going overboard with run time concerns. It's called being consistent.

That's not true - the spoilers about characters getting killed off were around long before people flipped out over the run time. AICN leaked all of that while the movie was still filming.

The run time freakout happened when it premiered at Cannes and someone found it's runtime listed as 1 hour 43 minutes. There was some confusion that it was a typo and the run time was actually 143 minutes, but the first time turned out to be correct.

There was also an issue with one of the admins here finding out it was possibly 2 hours and 15 minutes, but that also turned out not to be true. I don't know what the story was behind that rumor.

But the spoilers about the characters were the first giant concern, that went on for months before the movie's release. The run time only became an issue a few weeks before the release.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

A new creative team does not mean this film will avoid problems that have plagued previous Twentieth Century Fox films because, you know, this film is a Twentieth Century Fox film.

 

[chaseter]

That's not true - the spoilers about characters getting killed off were around long before people flipped out over the run time. AICN leaked all of that while the movie was still filming.

The run time freakout happened when it premiered at Cannes and someone found it's runtime listed as 1 hour 43 minutes. There was some confusion that it was a typo and the run time was actually 143 minutes, but the first time turned out to be correct.

There was also an issue with one of the admins here finding out it was possibly 2 hours and 15 minutes, but that also turned out not to be true. I don't know what the story was behind that rumor.

But the spoilers about the characters were the first giant concern, that went on for months before the movie's release. The run time only became an issue a few weeks before the release.

I was one of the ones hoping that it was a typo

 

[FaT_tONle]

That's not true - the spoilers about characters getting killed off were around long before people flipped out over the run time. AICN leaked all of that while the movie was still filming.

The run time freakout happened when it premiered at Cannes and someone found it's runtime listed as 1 hour 43 minutes. There was some confusion that it was a typo and the run time was actually 143 minutes, but the first time turned out to be correct.

There was also an issue with one of the admins here finding out it was possibly 2 hours and 15 minutes, but that also turned out not to be true. I don't know what the story was behind that rumor.

But the spoilers about the characters were the first giant concern, that went on for months before the movie's release. The run time only became an issue a few weeks before the release.

The spoilers existed but fanboys would not come to grips with it... there were people holding out hope all along that Cyke would come back in the end and what not... up until the screeners. It was certainly an issue but fanboys could not fathom the thought that they'd be killing guys off just like that, and some didn't even think it would be an issue. I definitely think there was more concern with the runtime.