The Run Time Length Thread

[chaseter]

Oh boo hoo. It's 106 minutes. Fox sucks balls. wa wa. BIG F'ING DEAL.


And why are you comparing this to Uwe Boll's movies? This and those movies aren't even in the same league.

When did I say they were in the same league Oh, that is right...I didn't. I love how you read posts and pick out what you want to respond to.

 

[chaseter]

He didn't say it was Uwe Boll bad. Everyone loves misrepresentation to make their point

What he wasy saying was all major FOX films have similar problems of rushing and cramming, so why would he expect different from this film. He compared this to saying do you think Uwe Boll's next movie will be good. This was not saying they're in the same league. This was a metaphor saying track record shows tendencies that are often predictable.

Oh if common sense were more prevalent

 

[Spider-Fan]

Oh if common sense were more prevalent

I can only spread the word

 

[X-Maniac]

Such depth? What does that make this movie Deathstrike was a tool for a fight...like Deadpool. Cyclops had development in the first film unlike most of the characters in this movie. The mastermind illusionist that in no way resembled the comic version...he is in this movie too!!!

But my point was that henchmen/henchwomen exist and that, despite the treatment of Deathstrike, it hasn't affected critics' or fans' overall view of X2.


This movie is intended to revolve around Wolverine and his backstory. Other characters will be secondary or even less (tertiary) or maybe just a mere glimpse. Wolverine is the protagonist. I don't really care about backstory on Blob, Wraith, etc. They are simply secondary or tertiary characters who are there within the narrative.

I've not seen the leaked film so I can't judge it at all. But I would expect several characters to be in the background, simply to flesh out the mutant movie-verse and add texture to the story. It's impossible to have a film with 15 main characters.

As for what happens, allegedly, to Deadpool, it sounds controversial for hardcore fanboys. But Fox talked about a solo spin-off, so they might be wanting to develop him further in future.

Fans and critics agree that X2 was the best of the series and critics and fans will find this mediocre because of the issues I addressed: pacing and lack of development. It makes no sense to cram in so many characters and purposely make a short movie...it is stupid.

I can't comment on pacing or development until I see the film. But I don't expect characterisation to be fleshed out on any more than three or four characters maximum.

Your unbridled love for Fox and all things with X-Men in the title is sad. If you want to empty your pockets for Fox so that we can keep getting medicore movies then by all means do it.

You're being hysterical. And inaccurate regarding my 'unbridled' love for Fox. I'll judge it on opening weekend and let it stand or fall by its reception and box office.

I was right about the run time after a lot of you were hoping for the opposite. It is a 106 minute movie with credits...congratulations on your success. For that, I do have bias and why should I care otherwise? What makes you think I should be objective when I can sit here and see their track record and make an educated guess as to what will happen down the road?

Have we had an official running time yet?

Do you think Uwe Boll's next film will be a masterpiece? Or, can you look at his track record and make a guess

Is Gavin Hood as bad as Uwe Boll?

 

[danoyse]

Did you not see what he said about my opinion That last bit was a snarky retort at his snarky comment about my opinion. It is my opinion and those that thought this movie was fantastic keep poking at my ribs.


Yeah...he is not jumping on anyone here

Fair enough.


EVERYONE stop jumping down each other's throats just because they disagree.

 

[chaseter]

Take us out for ice cream then.

 

[chaseter]

But my point was that henchmen/henchwomen exist and that, despite the treatment of Deathstrike, it hasn't affected critics' or fans' overall view of X2.

I agree that not all characters will shine and that some serve a lower purpose but Deadpool is quite a comic star and I was shocked to see his treatment. Wade was great and Reynolds was great so the logic of what they did to him baffles me. Kelly Hu...not so great in the acting department and nobody was screaming Kelly Hu for Deathstrike for 10 years

This movie is intended to revolve around Wolverine and his backstory. Other characters will be secondary or even less (tertiary) or maybe just a mere glimpse. Wolverine is the protagonist. I don't really care about backstory on Blob, Wraith, etc. They are simply secondary or tertiary characters who are there within the narrative.

I agree and Sabes is handled wonderfully and Wolverine is handled ok but Stryker is pivotal to Wolvie's plight and I didn't much like Danny Huston and the plot was iffy to me surrounding Stryker. My biggest complaint for side characters is of course Wade/Deadpool and I have listed many times why. I thought the supposed added 10-14-20 minutes would remedy that issue but it appears not true. Gambit was also a pivotal character in this film and although I loved Taylor as Gambit...parts seem forced that I think could have been handled by more development.

I've not seen the leaked film so I can't judge it at all. But I would expect several characters to be in the background, simply to flesh out the mutant movie-verse and add texture to the story. It's impossible to have a film with 15 main characters.

I agree and people like Cyclops, Emma, and all the other captured muties are there to be in the background. However, I think the team should have been given a lot more screen time than they got since they are pivotal to the plot.

As for what happens, allegedly, to Deadpool, it sounds controversial for hardcore fanboys. But Fox talked about a solo spin-off, so they might be wanting to develop him further in future.

I just don't see why they did what they did to Deadpool and how they utilized Reynolds...I said it baffles me. Weapon XI could have been a no name goon, a throw away villian, but they decided to hint at how awesome Reynolds is for 3 minutes and then toss away that entire character.

You're being hysterical. And inaccurate regarding my 'unbridled' love for Fox. I'll judge it on opening weekend and let it stand or fall by its reception and box office.

Just because I have beefs with the film and the previous films doesn't mean I am on a bandwagon or will blindly hate this movie and my comment to you was to show you how unfair it is to say such things. I liked parts of this movie and I didn't like parts and all in all it could have been way better which seems to be the theme for these films as of late.

Have we had an official running time yet?

We won't.

Is Gavin Hood as bad as Uwe Boll?

Did I say that?

 

[Sam Fisher]

When did I say they were in the same league Oh, that is right...I didn't. I love how you read posts and pick out what you want to respond to.

Just like you clearly did not read my post.

 

[chaseter]

Not much to get out of:

Oh boo hoo. It's 106 minutes. Fox sucks balls. wa wa. BIG F'ING DEAL.

And why are you comparing this to Uwe Boll's movies? This and those movies aren't even in the same league.

Never said they were in the same league so what is left out of that post that I am supposed to get?

 

[Sam Fisher]

Meaning just because it's 106 minutes, doesn't automatically mean the movie sucks. 106 minutes is better than 90.

 

[chaseter]

Now is that harder to say than "Oh boo hoo, wa wa, and BIG F'ING DEAL"?

This movie is 106 minutes with credits. Take away the credits and you have 90 something minutes...which is to be expected.

 

[Sam Fisher]

And it could be 90 minutes in total with credits. So 106 minutes is better than nothing.

 

[chaseter]

90 minutes is better than nothing, 80 minutes is better than nothing. We will always get X-Men movies so nothing isn't an option...it just depends on who makes them.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The credits wouldn't be longer than 6 minutes would they? I think the actual film will run at about 1 hour 40 minutes. That's not too bad really, X-1 was about that and I thought it handled introducing us to new characters quite well.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The credits wouldn't be longer than 6 minutes would they? I think the actual film will run at about 1 hour 40 minutes. That's not too bad really, X-1 was about that and I thought it handled introducing us to new characters quite well.

It is also the same run-time as X3 which was ridiculously rushed and didnt cover half the things it needed to. X-Men 1's story wasnt neat as extensive as this movies.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And do you honestly blame people for having an agenda against Fox? If they made their movies with the care and love other studio's mostly give to their comic book property's, there wouldnt be any need for an agenda. There is a reason the likes of WB, Universal, Paramount, etc, DONT have agenda's against them.

Yes, I do.

I really don't see the BAD films that Fox has put out.

The movies that people do refer to as bad? I think that's just having some pretty pretentious standards really.

The only reason I even notice the movie studio behind these films anymore is because of everyone crying about Fox. And even then, when I put it together, I still don't see the string of "horrible" films that Fox has put out.

 

[Rac]

Have we had an official running time yet?

Yes.

Classification boards don't make up the running times. But I'm sure you know this.

 

[Rac]

Yes, I do.

I really don't see the BAD films that Fox has put out.

The movies that people do refer to as bad? I think that's just having some pretty pretentious standards really.

The only reason I even notice the movie studio behind these films anymore is because of everyone crying about Fox. And even then, when I put it together, I still don't see the string of "horrible" films that Fox has put out.

How many good ones can you spot: http://akas.imdb.com/company/co0000756/#productionX20company

From the first glimpse I already spotted these ****fests: AVPR, Babylon A.D., Meet Dave, The Happening, The Seeker: The Dark is Rising, Hitman, Epic Movie and the list goes on...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yes, I do.

I really don't see the BAD films that Fox has put out.

The movies that people do refer to as bad? I think that's just having some pretty pretentious standards really.

The only reason I even notice the movie studio behind these films anymore is because of everyone crying about Fox. And even then, when I put it together, I still don't see the string of "horrible" films that Fox has put out.

Come on Nell, you cant deny that X3, both AvP movies, both FF movies, Eragon, Max Payne, Jumper, The Dark Is Rising, Dragonball Evolution, Street Fighter: The Legend Of Chun Li, I could go on forever. BOTH critics and fans realise these as poor movies (X3 got the best critical reception out of them all), its nothing to do with having pretentious standards, its simply about having standards t:.

But in all seriousness Nell, you blame people for being dissapointed with the above movies, this isnt even mentioning the likes of Babylon A.D, which the movies OWN DIRECTOR slated. These have been Fox's tentpole movies for the last 4/5 years. Compare them to other studio's tentpoles and how much they have satisfied critics and fans alike and surely you see were people are coming from. Fox did this to themselves. As I said, you dont see anyone slating other studio's for the same reasons do you?

EDIT: Thanks RAC for posting more examples, I had happily forgot the others.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Come on Nell, you cant deny that X3, both AvP movies, both FF movies, Eragon, Max Payne, Jumper, The Dark Is Rising, Dragonball Evolution, Street Fighter: The Legend Of Chun Li, I could go on forever. BOTH critics and fans realise these as poor movies (X3 got the best critical reception out of them all), its nothing to do with having pretentious standards, its simply about having standards t:.

But in all seriousness Nell, you blame people for being dissapointed with the above movies, this isnt even mentioning the likes of Babylon A.D, which the movies OWN DIRECTOR slated. These have been Fox's tentpole movies for the last 4/5 years. Compare them to other studio's tentpoles and how much they have satisfied critics and fans alike and surely you see were people are coming from. Fox did this to themselves. As I said, you dont see anyone slating other studio's for the same reasons do you?

EDIT: Thanks RAC for posting more examples, I had happily forgot the others.

I don't see you badmouthing LGF for the ENORMOUS crap that was Punisher Warzone, or The Spirit or Banghok Dangerous.

*Every studio has its share of bad products and its share of good ones.

Your hate for FOX is IMO pretty absurd. You've gotten way too caught up in this agenda and it makes you sound pretty obsessed when you speak of them.

Unless you're some guy that the studio fired, leaving you and your family out in the street - take it easy with the FOX bashing.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't see you badmouthing LGF for the ENORMOUS crap that was Punisher Warzone, or The Spirit or Banghok Dangerous.

*Every studio has its share of bad products and its share of good ones.

Your hate for FOX is IMO pretty absurd. You've gotten way too caught up in this agenda and it makes you sound pretty obsessed when you speak of them.

Unless you're some guy that the studio fired, leaving you and your family out in the street - take it easy with the FOX bashing.

Bit hard to work for Fox when I live in the UK isnt it .

I havent ONCE said that every studio doesnt have its duds, but look at the list above and tell me how many of those are recognised as good movies. Funny thing is, I enjoyed Punisher and The Spirit much more than X3, and they were poor movies.

Your love for Fox is IMO pretty absurd, at the end of the day, its people like you who defend them that are getting ****ed over the most with their mediocre at best output. As I have said a THOUSAND times, people dont hate Fox for no reason McCabe.

 

[Rac]

I don't see you badmouthing LGF for the ENORMOUS crap that was Punisher Warzone, or The Spirit or Banghok Dangerous.

Dude, when was Lionsgate a good studio? I think it's always been a meh-studio. They do good stuff, but it's always been a minority for them. Fox in the other hand was once an excellent studio.

And hey, everyone makes **** films (Batman 3&4, Catwoman, I Am Legend. Hello WB, what the hell?), but Fox is going strong with their half-assed films for almost a decade now. They just don't care about the quality anymore. Which is very sad.

 

[dark_b]

the problem with FOX is that they are way to obvious cheap. they never put time and money in their movies.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Dude, when was Lionsgate a good studio? I think it's always been a meh-studio. They do good stuff, but it's always been a minority for them. Fox in the other hand was once an excellent studio.

And hey, everyone makes **** films (Batman 3&4, Catwoman, I Am Legend. Hello WB, what the hell?), but Fox is going strong with their half-assed films for almost a decade now. They just don't care about the quality anymore. Which is very sad.

Exactly, the difference with other Studio's though is that they LEARN from their bad movies. At least BF and B&R ended with us getting BB and TDK, Fox has been pulling the same **** for nigh on ten years.

LGF just dont compare either, they dont have the money or resources to pour into movies that Fox does.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I enjoyed Punisher and The Spirit much more than X3, and they were poor movies.

That right there is evidence that your taste in movies is VERY trivial.

Either that or your hate for FOX got in the way of your common sense when deeming X3 a lesser film than Punisher Warzone (crime of a film) or The Spirit (evidence that Frank Miller should never direct again).