The Run Time Length Thread

[Sam Fisher]

I think you're missing the point completely. Oh well, it's not like I'll get my point across anyway. That's fine. That's your opinion. Just understand that some of us actually like FF and X3 and that we don't judge a movie based on a trailer or a few clips.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's fine for FF. But FF is a dead franchise now because of the route you apparently liked that Fox took. Just keep that in mind.

 

[Sam Fisher]

This is why I hate Fox haters. No one can have a differing opinion.



Fox took that route because it made them money{for the first movie at least}. Fox is a business, do you think they care about what you or me thinks? No. They're in it to make money.



Yeah, there many many many things in FF they could have done so much better. But I still enjoyed it for what it was. A fun movie.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I'm sorry Vile. I've got nothing against you. I just get a bit annoyed when every other post I see nowadays is a Fox hate

 

[Ace of Knaves]

To be fair, Fox does deserve some hate.

But what really annoys me about some people is that they seem to expect the studios to cater JUST to them, or us you know what I mean?

If they were to make these films just for the fans of the source material then the comic book movie genre wouldn't last as long as it has.

There was some posts on the main superherohype page on the new Ryan Reynolds/Wade Wilson picture article. There was some people on there like "Why have they got to change it?!?! Don't they realize it's the fans who bring in the money! They should make these films just for the fans!!" and crap like that. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy, what a numpty.

Anyone who thinks like that should have some sense slapped into them. Sure I would love it if all these films were made just for fans of the books, but it is NEVER gonna happen. Never in a million years.

 

[TheVileOne]

This is why I hate Fox haters. No one can have a differing opinion.



Fox took that route because it made them money{for the first movie at least}. Fox is a business, do you think they care about what you or me thinks? No. They're in it to make money.

Obviously you don't see the logic in that their route didn't have longevity. That route they took ultimately failed with the second movie. So no third FF. No Silver Surfer movie. Done. Because of the first film.

Yeah, there many many many things in FF they could have done so much better. But I still enjoyed it for what it was. A fun movie.

That ruined the future of FF as a film franchise.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

*sigh*

Are we still going on and on about the blind, mindless hatred of Fox?

There really is truth to the whole "if you don't like Fox, don't watch their movies" argument. Instead, people keep watching them and keep watching them, and keep complaining and keep complaining.

For the record, speaking of box office flops, how about that Watchmen? And it WAS accurate to the source material, so what does that say?

*awaits fanboi elitism that the general audience is too "stupid" to "get it"*

 

[Sam Fisher]

To be fair, Fox does deserve some hate.

But what really annoys me about some people is that they seem to expect the studios to cater JUST to them, or us you know what I mean?

If they were to make these films just for the fans of the source material then the comic book movie genre wouldn't last as long as it has.

There was some posts on the main superherohype page on the new Ryan Reynolds/Wade Wilson picture article. There was some people on there like "Why have they got to change it?!?! Don't they realize it's the fans who bring in the money! They should make these films just for the fans!!" and crap like that. I couldn't help but laugh at the guy, what a numpty.

Anyone who thinks like that should have some sense slapped into them. Sure I would love it if all these films were made just for fans of the books, but it is NEVER gonna happen. Never in a million years.

Yes, I agree Fox deserves hate. I just think fans get too worked up over it.

Obviously you don't see the logic in that their route didn't have longevity. That route they took ultimately failed with the second movie. So no third FF. No Silver Surfer movie. Done. Because of the first film.



That ruined the future of FF as a film franchise.

Like I said, Fox does not care about that. They only care about bringing in the highest profits possible, hence the 90 minute movies{and no, I'm not saying this is a good thing}.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

I don't think Fox as a studio can be entirely blamed for FF demise. It was poorly written, poorly acted (apart from Chiklis and Evans). Fox threw a lot of money at both films, it can't be said they were being stingy. It's just the director and writers didn't do a very good job.

I mean, do you guys think a Fox exec was like "So let's make the Silver Surfers power come from his board!"

Errr...I don't think so. I'd be surprised if a Fox exec would even have the ability to think something like that up. It was the writers or the director who made that decision.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

I don't think Fox as a studio can be entirely blamed for FF demise. It was poorly written, poorly acted (apart from Chiklis and Evans). Fox threw a lot of money at both films, it can't be said they were being stingy. It's just the director and writers didn't do a very good job.

I mean, do you guys think a Fox exec was like "So let's make the Silver Surfers power come from his board!"

Errr...I don't think so. I'd be surprised if a Fox exec would even have the ability to think something like that up. It was the writers or the director who made that decision.

People want to blame the studio for everything, when it's the writers who are putting things on paper, and the directors who are often coming up with the ideas.

For the record: Cyclops dying was not a Fox decision. It was a collaboration between Kinberg, Penn, and Vaughn, because they didn't have James Marsden for a long period of time. They, in Kinberg's words, came up with a "really awesome idea" on how to work around his limited availability.

As far as Singer not being there, even from the beginning he didn't really want to stick around. He said he didn't want to do another X-Men film until he did something else first. That something else became Logan's Run. Dunno whatever even happened to that.

Fox NEEDED to move on with X-Men 3. If they linger too long, actors lose availability, audiences lose interest - the company was basically putting themselves in a position to lose money if they didn't release the movie when they did. It had nothing to do with beating Singer to theatres.

I'm not saying Fox is innocent - they are still a business and make BUSINESS decisions, not artistic decisions.

But there is so much false information being spewed out there just to bad mouth Fox. It's like a bunch if Michael Moore's running around making up lies and bending the truth to "expose the truth from the big bad evil entity".

And people wonder why I get frustrated with all the mindless, ignorant Fox hate.

 

[Sam Fisher]

People want to blame the studio for everything, when it's the writers who are putting things on paper, and the directors who are often coming up with the ideas.

For the record: Cyclops dying was not a Fox decision. It was a collaboration between Kinberg, Penn, and Vaughn, because they didn't have James Marsden for a long period of time. They, in Kinberg's words, came up with a "really awesome idea" on how to work around his limited availability.

As far as Singer not being there, even from the beginning he didn't really want to stick around. He said he didn't want to do another X-Men film until he did something else first. That something else became Logan's Run. Dunno whatever even happened to that.

Fox NEEDED to move on with X-Men 3. If they linger too long, actors lose availability, audiences lose interest - the company was basically putting themselves in a position to lose money if they didn't release the movie when they did. It had nothing to do with beating Singer to theatres.

I'm not saying Fox is innocent - they are still a business and make BUSINESS decisions, not artistic decisions.

But there is so much false information being spewed out there just to bad mouth Fox. It's like a bunch if Michael Moore's running around making up lies and bending the truth to "expose the truth from the big bad evil entity".

And people wonder why I get frustrated with all the mindless, ignorant Fox hate.

Well, You two pretty much summed up how I feel

 

[BMM]

That's exactly what i was trying to say Neil Just look at Watchmen and try to justify studios making movies just for the fans.

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of a graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of an Alan Moore graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

300 wasn't Alan Moore, it was Frank Miller.

But that's just semantics regarding your point.

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes, and X-Men is a HUGE franchise, in which they are on film #4 and STILL counting, as they are looking at possible Magneto (hope it doesn't happen), First Class (hope it DOES happen, if it's a prequel), and maybe even Deadpool films.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

 

[BMM]

300 wasn't Alan Moore, it was Frank Miller.

D'oh. My bad. My point still stands.

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes...

I'm going to disagree. Fox didn't pursue the likes of Daredevil, Elektra, and Fantastic Four with the hopes of producing 1 or 2 lackluster films instead of franchises capable of standing alongside the likes of X-Men or Batman or Spider-Man. I think the fact that Daredevil and Elektra fell by the wayside and the fact that the Fantastic Four films fared worse with each installment, so much so that Fox is rumored to reboot the franchise, speaks volumes about the mistakes the studio didn't make.

and X-Men is a HUGE franchise, in which they are on film #4 and STILL counting, as they are looking at possible Magneto (hope it doesn't happen), First Class (hope it DOES happen, if it's a prequel), and maybe even Deadpool films.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

Yes they do, and it isn't limited to their comic book properties.

 

[Peter McCabe]

But really, Fox hasn't made any "mistakes" with their comic book movies. Daredevil and Fantastic 4 were both successes...

Daredevil was actually a flop. Domestically it made almost the same amount of money it cost to shoot.

Fantastic 4 was a moderate success, and it was released the same year as Elektra - which to this date has been FOX's biggest comic book bomb. 2005 was a bad year for FOX, they had 2 comic book movies out (one of them a sequel) and both the combined grosses for those films still couldn't catch up to Batman Begins' $200 Million box office gross domestically.

Perhaps in the fan perspective, there were mistakes made, but Fox has suffered none from them, and doesn't have any "lesson to learn".

ESPECIALLY when it comes to X-Men.

This I really agree with.

X-Men is the first successful and longest running comic book franchise, going on 10 years.

The first X-Men film put comic book movies on the map again in a serious form (it had been 10 years since the Burton Batman films) and it opened the door for the Spider Man and Nolan Batman films.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Warner Bros. wasn't making a movie just for the fans. The studio more than likely thought that because a Zack Snyder directed adaptation of a graphic novel, 300, was so successful in March 2007, they would do the same thing with Watchmen and capture the same success again. Clearly, that is not the case. Lesson learned? The same formula doesn't always work twice. Perhaps, Warner Bros. has learned its lesson. The question is, has Fox learned a lesson from its screw-ups?

But 300 wasn't popular because it was accurate to the source material. It was popular because it's a over the top, gory, swords and sandals extravaganza.

Watchmen was as true to the source material as possible really, a few things weren't explored (news stand guy, Rorschach's shrink) but they will probably be in the extended addition. It was made for the fans by a fan, and it hasn't flopped per se, but it isn't doing very well.

The point is, these films ARE NOT MADE JUST FOR US COMIC BOOK FANS. And they never will be, never, ever, ever. I really hope they would be, but we, comic book fans, are not the target of these studios. They look at these films as products, investments. They want their product to be as successful as possible. Catering to just comic book fans in most cases wouldn't allow that.

 

[TheVileOne]

Sorry but if the FF movie franchise is dead now then they are making a lot of mistakes. FF was clearly a mistake since they did the same crap over again in the sequel and people didn't care because of the first one.

Also Sam Fisher, you keep harping on Fox wanting to make the most money possible hence short running times.

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee and see that is one of the most flawed and stupidest mindsets ever.

X-men 3 might've been Fox's ideal length. And so was X-men. But last time I checked, the second highest grossing movie of all time was a 2 and a half hour comic book movie.

So the logic of this stupid running time and 90 minutes = more money is stupid and flawed.

Return of the King was 3 hours and 20 minutes and it still made more money than any other LOTR film.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Sorry but if the FF movie franchise is dead now then they are making a lot of mistakes. FF was clearly a mistake since they did the same crap over again in the sequel and people didn't care because of the first one.

I want a reboot for the F4, just not now.

maybe in 10 years.

 

[Peter McCabe]

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee and see that is one of the most flawed and stupidest mindsets ever.

X-men 3 might've been Fox's ideal length. And so was X-men. But last time I checked, the second highest grossing movie of all time was a 2 and a half hour comic book movie.

So the logic of this stupid running time and 90 minutes = more money is stupid and flawed.

Return of the King was 3 hours and 20 minutes and it still made more money than any other LOTR film.

I agree with all of this BUT there are some GREAT 90 -100 minute movies out there.

its a double edged sword.

crappy long films and crappy short films.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said... X-3 was shaping up to be a 300 million dollar film based on the hype of the first two films. No doubt in my mind... had they fleshed out the plot over a two and a half hour film treating the characters/story with respect while honoring the source material, they would have made that kind of money. X-Men is probably the most popular Marvel title next to Spiderman. It should have been the number two franchise. Now it looks like Avengers, IM, and other Marvel films will soon leave it in the dust. Along with FF, whose films up until this point have been a joke in comparison to the first two SM films, X-2, IM, BB, and TDK. Those are the facts. Until Fox gets their comic book property on par with those other franchises, they have underacheived... that's all there is too it. And that means they made mistakes. Mistakes that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars based on the under utilization of their comic book properties. The bar has been set... and Fox has failed miserably thus far in terms of meeting that bar, with the exception of the first two X-Men films.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said... X-3 was shaping up to be a 300 million dollar film based on the hype of the first two films. No doubt in my mind... had they fleshed out the plot over a two and a half hour film treating the characters/story with respect while honoring the source material, they would have made that kind of money. X-Men is probably the most popular Marvel title next to Spiderman. It should have been the number two franchise. Now it looks like Avengers, IM, and other Marvel films will soon leave it in the dust. Along with FF, whose films up until this point have been a joke in comparison to the first two SM films, X-2, IM, BB, and TDK. Those are the facts. Until Fox gets their comic book property on par with those other franchises, they have underacheived... simple as that. And that means they made mistakes. Mistakes that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars based on the under utilization of their comic book properties. The bar has been set... and Fox has failed miserably thus far, with the exception of the first two X-Men films.

not true at all and once more spoken with a very elite mentality.

General audiences DONT CARE about source material.

TDK was not source material accurate and look how that went.

*the fact that you consider IRON MAN a better film than X1 says alot about your taste in popcorn.

 

[FaT_tONle]

not true at all and once more spoken with a very elite mentality.

General audiences DONT CARE about source material.

TDK was not source material accurate and look how that went.

*the fact that you consider IRON MAN a better film than X1 says alot about your taste in popcorn.

TDK drew many inspirations from the source material like the Long Halloween... and it was reflected. You don't need to directly adapt something like a Snyder... but you also can't make Pheonix a plot device and give Cyclops the five minute treatment in a Pheonix arc... imagine Nolan giving Dent ten minutes of screen time before killing him off. That is the equivalent.

 

[TheVileOne]

I agree with all of this BUT there are some GREAT 90 -100 minute movies out there.

its a double edged sword.

crappy long films and crappy short films.

Of course there are. But I'm tired of people saying that Fox does this with these movies because they want to make the most money when its total hogwash.

A lot of good comedies are short and under 2 hours. But a lot of Judd Apatow comedies run longer than the typical R-rated comedies, but they still make a ton of money.

 

[Peter McCabe]

TDK drew many inspirations from the source material like the Long Halloween... and it was reflected. You don't need to directly adapt something like Snyder... but you also can't make Pheonix a plot device and give Cyclops the five minute treatment in a Pheonix arc... imagine Nolan giving Dent ten minutes of screen time before killing him off. That is the equivalent.

The Phoenix arc is far too cheesy to give it a Zack Snyder adaptation on film.

Even Claremont agreed it shouldnt be directly adapted.

I liked what they did with Jean in the movie and all the people that hadn't read the arc apparently did too.

ONLY comic book fans dislike the phoenix story in X3.

90% of non-fans I meet liked it.

what does that say?

(I'll answer) it says that people dont care AT ALL about the source material most of the time.

*I'm already getting bombarded with positive questions about "that creepy looking dude with the blades and laser eyes fighting wolverine".

I for one am almost never bothered by the changes I see in the films. Comics are one thing, films are another.

and then there's WATCHMEN

 

[FaT_tONle]

The Phoenix arc is far too cheesy to give it a Zack Snyder adaptation on film.

Even Claremont agreed it shouldnt be directly adapted.

I liked what they did with Jean in the movie and all the people that hadn't read the arc apparently did too.

ONLY comic book fans dislike the phoenix story in X3.

90% of non-fans I meet liked it.

If you say so... I don't remotely agree.

what does that say?

(I'll answer) it says that people dont care AT ALL about the source material most of the time.

*I'm already getting bombarded with positive questions about "that creepy looking dude with the blades and laser eyes fighting wolverine".

I for one am almost never bothered by the changes I see in the films. Comics are one thing, films are another.

and then there's WATCHMEN

Again, if you think the GP is so oblivious to the source material that they will accept whatever is thrown at them regardless, then you are mistaken. Again, no one cares about a faithful adaptation of the source material other than fanboys. It's about treating your property with a certain amount of respect that when given, will connect and resonate more among the general audience. The FF films and X-3 did not acheive this... hence the modest/mediocre reception to them.