The Run Time Length Thread

[dark_b]

ok this post bothers me because what you are doing is alienating wolverine fans over a ridiculous crusade against a studio exec that as of now hasn't given us ANY indication that this movie will be bad.

we've gotten TWO excellent trailers, the possibility of a 5 day weekend opening and the notion that the film will be dark since it seems to have a content-based influence from TDK's PG-13 pushing material.

to watch this movie is to support Wolverine, for whatever reason you may feel like watching it.

*the only reason you are complaining now is that you have too much time on your hands and assumptions/negative speculation seems to entertain you quite well

i am a fan of those movies and i am a member of SHH. i watched a lot of big budget FOX movies. and a lot of them could be better if the editing wouldnt suck and if they would not be to short.

this is a forum and this is what we do

 

[Peter McCabe]

you understand the proces of filmaking?

you can have the best footage,best acting in the footage but if you f.... up the editing you f... up the movie. editing is very imporant. there is nooooooo way that they filmed this movie with a 1:30 or 1:45 runing time in mind. noooooo way. you can destroy a good movie with the editing.

ASSUMPTIONS.

you dont know anything at all about the editing of this film.

you don't know the target running time Hood and Jackman had in mind nor do you know what the final cut's running time is.

i am a fan of those movies and i am a member of SHH. i watched a lot of big budget FOX movies. and a lot of them could be better if the editing wouldnt suck and if they would not be to short.

You haven't seen this one so why are you complaining?

wait until you see the movie to complain about the editing

this is a forum and this is what we do

you mean "what you do" is complain? or do you mean "what you do" is make assumptions about things you know nothing about?

ALL you know is that the movie MIGHT run under 2 hours. You don't even know that for certain.

with knowledge that minimal, you shouldn't be telling people that to watch this movie is to encourage bad movies vetoed by Tom Rothman.

 

[def28]

No mattar what the running time. We are gonna get the best fight scenes out of all the X flix. The trailer for Wolverine has more action then X1 and 2 combined imo. Then again, with a short running time the fights might seem crammed.

Donner said there is not much on the cutting room floor for the DVD extras so thats a good thing.

 

[X-Maniac]

Good news!

even though I still would have preferred a 2 hour, 45 minute movie

as for Storm still making the cut - as long as they don't mess with Team X's mission to Africa, I'm indifferent about it.

*I still believe its possible for this film to work under 2 hours, just means it won't thoroughly cover the origin is all.

I think 2hrs 45mins is a bit too long! Trim about 25-30mins off that and it's more reasonable.

Then add 15-30mins on to the upcoming Blu-ray of X-Men: The Last Stand, and we're good to go.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I think 2hrs 45mins is a bit too long! Trim about 25-30mins off that and it's more reasonable.

Then add 15-30mins on to the upcoming Blu-ray of X-Men: The Last Stand, and we're good to go.

that would be a wet dream

*I will never understand WHY Ratner chose the X-Jet scene with Logan pulling a Cyclops instead of "They're not coming."

I also think the film's after the credits scene shoulda been Logan going back to Canada, and have the Xavier twin brother scene take place before Magneto relapsing.

 

[narrows101]

I believe this author is "Moriarty" from AICN.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...009-2-10-storm-may-still-show-up-in-wolverine

BUZZKILL: Storm may still show up in 'Wolverine'
Posted by Drew McWeeny

Chances are, even if she shows up in 'Wolverine,' Storm won't be in the form fans recognize

Credit: Marvel

I've been getting a barrage of mail today from people asking me to weigh in on the latest rumbles from the post-production process on "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Seems there is a piece of an interview that went up over at Widescreen Vision, which appears to be a foreign DVD site, where Lauren Shuler-Donner said that Storm's cameo had been cut from the film. Evidently, she showed up in a scene set in her village when she was very young. Shuler-Donner also referred to the film as "waaaay under two hours."

Neither of those statements appears to be accurate at the moment. The movie's current running time (and keep in mind, they are in post right now, mixing the reels, tweaking the ending, and things are still in flux to some extent) is pretty much right at two hours. Maybe a few minutes under. But there is a strong chance the Storm scene has made it back into the film, according to my source, as one of the many last-minute changes that director Gavin Hood has made while working with producers to nail the film down.

[more after the jump]

Considering how all over "X-Men 3" and "X-Men 2" I was during production, some people have privately railed at me for not giving "Wolverine" the same kind of scrutiny. Honestly, at this point, either the film will work, or it won't, but me doing in-depth reportage on a Fox movie's development drama is a broken record. I think their system is broken. Deeply, deeply broken. Good movies occasionally stumble out of the studio, confused about how they escaped unmolested, but the only thing that happens when I write about Fox is fanboys get angry. Nothing else changes. I decided to sit "Wolverine" out completely, no matter what got e-mailed to me, and I've been happier for it. I like Gavin Hood. Hell, I think "Tsotsi" is amazing. And I wish the entire creative team well with the final product. This is pretty much their last shot at keeping this franchise viable, and I certainly don't want to see an industry where there's no room for new "X-Men" films in the future. But right now, as each day gets closer and closer to a locked final cut, there's very little fans are going to do by getting up in arms, and Shuler-Donner's comments are being overblown. If the Storm cameo is important to you, and you're one of the people who is livid today because of the possibility of her not being in the film, feel free to relax and sit back, because I have a feeling you'll be happy when the film finally opens on May 1st.

 

[X-Maniac]

I believe this author is "Moriarty" from AICN.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...009-2-10-storm-may-still-show-up-in-wolverine

Already posted earlier. The problem with that piece is it doesn't mention where the information came from. A studio source? Someone else? Didn't that site screw up already by claiming Green Hornet was dead when it wasn't? I'd like some sort of context for the information posted, like 'a studio source said...'

 

[X-Maniac]

that would be a wet dream

Sadly, it seems to be nothing more than a dream. The opportunity is there to create a new version, especially with this being a second Blu-ray issue for X3, but we won't get it.

*I will never understand WHY Ratner chose the X-Jet scene with Logan pulling a Cyclops instead of "They're not coming."

Depends if Ratner chose it. It might be that they wanted Wolverine in a leadership spot.

I also think the film's after the credits scene shoulda been Logan going back to Canada, and have the Xavier twin brother scene take place before Magneto relapsing.

Sounds good to me. Maybe I'll get on with a 'fan edit' one day.

 

[WeaponXProject]

So I see this thread has gone insane. t:

examples:
"Tom Rothman is in reality the Sith Lord Darth Sidious."

I knew it!^


I am hoping that the Buzzkill article is true because I was literally depressed yesterday when i heard what Shuler said. Everyone at work was like, "What's wrong?" And I was sobbing around like the donkey from Winnie the Pooh. I was all, "Oh bother..."

 

[Downhere]

I knew it!^


I am hoping that the Buzzkill article is true because I was literally depressed yesterday when i heard what Shuler said. Everyone at work was like, "What's wrong?" And I was sobbing around like the donkey from Winnie the Pooh. I was all, "Oh bother..."

The only odd thing is how in the world would a producer of the film get the runtime so wrong? If it's closer to 2 hours, why say it's way under it. I'm more inclined to believe a producer on the film than an anonymous source...although I do hope the latter is correct on this issue.

 

[narrows101]

Already posted earlier. The problem with that piece is it doesn't mention where the information came from. A studio source? Someone else? Didn't that site screw up already by claiming Green Hornet was dead when it wasn't? I'd like some sort of context for the information posted, like 'a studio source said...'

Oops, sorry - posted in a rush to get off the computer to get ready for work.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I knew it!^

Tom Rothman's response to being fired from FOX...

 

[danoyse]

ASSUMPTIONS.

you dont know anything at all about the editing of this film.

you don't know the target running time Hood and Jackman had in mind nor do you know what the final cut's running time is.



You haven't seen this one so why are you complaining?

wait until you see the movie to complain about the editing



you mean "what you do" is complain? or do you mean "what you do" is make assumptions about things you know nothing about?

ALL you know is that the movie MIGHT run under 2 hours. You don't even know that for certain.

with knowledge that minimal, you shouldn't be telling people that to watch this movie is to encourage bad movies vetoed by Tom Rothman.

And all you are making are assumptions too, so stop jumping down everyone's throat if they complain.

 

[Peter McCabe]

And all you are making are assumptions too, so stop jumping down everyone's throat if they complain.

here we go...

where are MY assumptions? show me please.

I'm basing ALL my statements on evidence and facts.

what I AM NOT doing is saying "This is gonna suck because I say its gonna suck."

*am I happy with a 90 - 100 minute cut of this movie? Not really.

does this running time mean the movie will fail miserably? Not at all.

don't ask me to be supportive of negative speculation just for the sake of satisfying the crowds

some of us here have common sense and have not yet concluded this movie HAS TO FAIL due to its running time.

 

[danoyse]

Ah for God's sake... propose to the guy... maybe he'll agree being such a nice guy and all. Give it a rest. I am not denying he isn't a class guy. But in Hollywood it is not such a bad thing to be a hard ass sometimes. If he is happy with the quality of an 90-100 minute film littered with cameos and cut up by a studio then more power to him. I am sure his views on the film... whatever the final cut happens to be... will be vastly different if this thing flops. All I said was that he should have stood up to this studio like Norton did... and fought for a longer more character driven product. 90 minutes ain't gonna cut it... simple as that.

The difference is that I posted something that was actually true, as opposed to some theory that you pulled out of your *** because you're upset about the runtime of a movie (which now may not even be true now) that you refuse to see yet still advertise in your sig.

 

[FaT_tONle]

The difference is that I posted something that was actually true, as opposed to some theory that you pulled out of your *** because you're upset about the runtime of a movie (which now may not even be true now) that you refuse to see yet still advertise in your sig.

I'll believe it when I see it. As far as the sig... I'll wait for reviews and an official runtime before I remove it... I am taking Donner's word over this report though. And as far as Jackman... no I am not pulling anything out of my ass... he should have been more involved in the editing process and what not... I can't see why he'd want such a short film.

 

[danoyse]

I'll believe it when I see it. As far as the sig... I'll wait for reviews and an official runtime before I remove it... I am taking Donner's word over this report though. And as far as Jackman... no I am not pulling anything out of my ass... he should have been more involved in the editing process and what not... I can't see why he'd want such a short film.

Certainly a different song than the one you were singing yesterday:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16420981&postcount=91

LMAO at this run time report... Fox can **** it. This is the last straw for me... I won't be seeing this film in theatres.

 

[Nivek]

Meh, not all that excited to see this anyway, given what I seen with X-3. maybe if Fanboys just did more than talk tough on the internet and actually organized a campaign against Fox for short changing us, we could get something done to get Rothman from pushing out these films.

 

[FrostBite]

Well, all this business about the run time is a shame. If true I'll be waiting for the DVD. Even if I thoroughly enjoy it, I don't want to spend $8 seeing a butchering of someones work when the economy is as bad as it is.

Maybe I'll see it at the cheap $3 theater, but I doubt it.

 

[Celestial]

Someone was looking for the reference to Mad Max and Dirty Harry from Jackman. I found this interview from Comic-Con. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure he let "90 minutes" slip out in another Comic-Con interview but at the time I hoped he wasn't serious.

There's no reason why a 90-100 minute film can't be good, but I'm concerned because of the huge number of characters to be featured.

 

[Endeavor]

<continues with doomsday howls>

It's taken me months of promos, trailers, etc. to get me out of the cynical doubting mode that this movie is going to fail. An hour and a half? I was wondering how they were going to fit it in 2 hours.

Seriously, this bombs.

Isn't there a thread somewhere around here where the hosts of discontented fans gather around a virtual fire and chant, "reboot to Marvel"?

<goes in search of it>

If you find it let me know.
I want all Marvel properties out of FOX. Marvel Studios did a reboot of Hulk which turned out better than the one at Universal (IMO).
Who's to say they can't produce THE definitive X-Men movie themselves?

 

[WeaponXProject]

Meh, not all that excited to see this anyway, given what I seen with X-3. maybe if Fanboys just did more than talk tough on the internet and actually organized a campaign against Fox for short changing us, we could get something done to get Rothman from pushing out these films.

I wish that would happen.

But the main issue is that the general audience will see this movie, no matter how dumb or dull Fox can make it (if they did). So no matter what 8000 of us say or do there will still be idiots ranting about how awesome it was.

 

[WeaponXProject]

If you find it let me know.
I want all Marvel properties out of FOX. Marvel Studios did a reboot of Hulk which turned out better than the one at Universal (IMO).
Who's to say they can't produce THE definitive X-Men movie themselves?

I don't think TIH was better at all. I thought the animation was better and the fight scenes were but the story was way weaker than the other Hulk. The characters in the other Hulk were deeper and emotionally driven where in this movie it showed signs of that but was just a popcorn movie. I didn't think that Norton's performance was very good in it but thank God Hulk had a formidable villain in TIH.

But I am on your side with giving Marvel the rights back.

 

[FrostBite]

There's no reason why a 90-100 minute film can't be good, but I'm concerned because of the huge number of characters to be featured.

Bingo! There's just a ton of story to tell and the scope is immense. I am not saying it can't be pulled off, but covering multiple time periods, Sabretooth fighting with him at least 2 times, Deadpool's fight, Gambit's fight scene, Weapon XI, all while trying to tell the story of him growing up, fighting in wars, losing his love, and joining weapon X and whatever story comes after.

PHEW, big number of things to cover for an hour and a half.

 

[FrostBite]

I don't think TIH was better at all. I thought the animation was better and the fight scenes were but the story was way weaker than the other Hulk. The characters in the other Hulk were deeper and emotionally driven where in this movie it showed signs of that but was just a popcorn movie. I didn't think that Norton's performance was very good in it but thank God Hulk had a formidable villain in TIH.

But I am on your side with giving Marvel the rights back.

I put Hulk above all else comic book wise... and TIH was better for me. Banner, was deeper in Hulk '03. Hulk was better in Hulk '08, and had they not cut out out God knows how many scenes that are found on the DVD/Blu-ray, it could have been a better movie. Still, while Hulk '03 was deep, it was also a bore fest for me and many others. I understood it, I just didn't care.