The Run Time Length Thread

[Peter McCabe]

The FF films and X-3 did not acheive this... hence the modest/mediocre reception to them.

$234 Million plus a $123 Million 3 day weekend is anything but modest.

that's a financial success in the eyes of ANY movie watcher.

 

[FaT_tONle]

$234 Million plus a $123 Million 3 day weekend is anything but modest.

that's a financial success in the eyes of ANY movie watcher.

Not in this day in age IF you keep in mind the budget was well over 200 million. IM was around 180... grosses 300 plus. X-1, X-2 cost about 60 and 110 respectively... we know what those films grossed. When you are investing that kind of money, anything short of 300 is a disappointment, at least in comparison to your predecessors and contemporaries. It didn't flop, but it underacheived. Great opening... modest legs at best. That is X-3.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Not in this day in age IF you keep in ming the budget was well over 200 million. IM was around 180... grosses 300 plus. X-1, X-2 cost about 60 and 110 respectively... we know what those films grossed. When you are investing that kind of money, anything short of 300 is a disappointment, at least in comparison to your predecessors and contemporaries. It didn't flop, but it underacheived. Great opening... modest legs at best. That is X-3.

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

Trailer I hit 9 months prior to release, and that set the hysteria with the masses into motion.

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.

Also add the lack of an action figure line for it and the lack of endorsements from places like BK and such, which didn't help.

*I'm a HUGE fan of Jon Favreau's, but I really wasn't that impressed with IRON MAN. I liked X3 more simply because it was a long anticipated follow up to X2 and because the tone/intensity of the plot was the darkest I had ever seen in a comic book movie - until TDK.

The pace was a bit fast, yeah.

The supporting characters were filler at best.

But there was Jackman, and Janssen, and Stewart and Grammer

 

[FaT_tONle]

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

Trailer I hit 9 months prior to release, and that set the hysteria with the masses into motion.

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.

You know I don't know where you are getting this stuff to be honest... amusing nonetheless. I think Nolan got the memo that dark films won't have great legs... if X-3 was even that dark...

Also add the lack of an action figure line for it and the lack of endorsements from places like BK and such, which didn't help.

Again... statistics and sources to back up these statements would be nice... you are honestly the first person I have met to have mentioned this kind of stuff.

*I'm a HUGE fan of Jon Favreau's, but I really wasn't that impressed with IRON MAN. I liked X3 more simply because it was a long anticipated follow up to X2 and because the tone/intensity of the plot was the darkest I had ever seen in a comic book movie - until TDK.

Whatever floats your boat.

The pace was a bit fast, yeah.

The supporting characters were filler at best.

But there was Jackman, and Janssen, and Stewart and Grammer

And the movie underacheived at the box office despite a 230 million dollar gross, and had mediocre to poor WOM. Pretty forgettable in the eyes of most movie goers when you look at the dropoffs the following weeks. Same with the FF films... sorry if you disagree. I am just comparing the numbers.

 

[Peter McCabe]

You know I honestly don't know where you are getting this stuff to be honest... amusing nonetheless. I think Nolan got the memo that dark films won't have great legs... if X-3 was even that dark...

Well here's my source of evidence ---> the theatres.

When I saw X3 the second and third times (early shows on friday and saturday) I was surrounded by many 9 - 12 year olds accompanied by their parents. The same kinds of people I saw EVERY time I went to see IRON MAN.

When I saw TDK, I barely ever saw these young audiences.

TDK's numbers MUST have been primarily based on teenagers and adults.

While IRON MAN's must have been largely composed of kids.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Well here's my source of evidence ---> the theatres.

When I saw X3 the second and third times (early shows on friday and saturday) I was surrounded by many 9 - 12 year olds accompanied by their parents. The same kinds of people I saw EVERY time I went to see IRON MAN.

Funny... because when a friend dragged me into X-3 the second or third week... I don't remember seeing anyone there spare for two or three other groups... . Guess it's all about POV... at least the several people that were in attendance were not kids I'll give you that much.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197269,00.html

$225 million to make
$45 million first day (second highest all time at that point)

Domestic total = $234,362,462

But no, it's not done there. You see, the film didn't merely make a $9 million profit, no, it's actually about $224 million profit, because the movie is shown in more than just the United States.

Foreign total = $224,997,093

So what we have is this:

$234,362,462
+$224,997,093
_____________

$459,359,555

Then you take the money made, and subtract the cost. We then have:

$459,359,555
-$225,000,000
_____________
$234,359,555 in profit

It's 10 day total is 17th all time.

All time domestic is still #57 all time, #79 all time worldwide.

^ Source: boxofficemojo.com http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm

Then you factor in DVD's, where it sold over 5 million copies it's first week, even beating out a big time Disney release with The Little Mermaid (never underestimate the power of those Disney Classics releases).

^ Source: Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252163

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.

 

[FaT_tONle]

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.

I guess we can't hold X-Men to the same level of expectations we have for Spiderman, Batman, and even Iron Man in terms of box office success.

 

[Downhere]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197269,00.html

$225 million to make
$45 million first day (second highest all time at that point)

Domestic total = $234,362,462

But no, it's not done there. You see, the film didn't merely make a $9 million profit, no, it's actually about $224 million profit, because the movie is shown in more than just the United States.

Foreign total = $224,997,093

So what we have is this:

$234,362,462
+$224,997,093
_____________

$459,359,555

Then you take the money made, and subtract the cost. We then have:

$459,359,555
-$225,000,000
_____________
$234,359,555 in profit

It's 10 day total is 17th all time.

All time domestic is still #57 all time, #79 all time worldwide.

^ Source: boxofficemojo.com http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=x3.htm

Then you factor in DVD's, where it sold over 5 million copies it's first week, even beating out a big time Disney release with The Little Mermaid (never underestimate the power of those Disney Classics releases).

^ Source: Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252163

None of that sounds modest at all to me. That sounds like a huge blockbuster hit.

You have to take into account that studio's only get (on average) 55% of the total gross considering theaters will get a chunk of the change. So, Fox would have gotten around 250 million from the theatrical haul of X3, which you then subtract the production and marketing costs. I think it's safe to say that Fox didn't make a profit from the theatrical takings but they got their profit from the DVD's and cable rights.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I think it's safe to say that Fox didn't make a profit from the theatrical takings but they got their profit from the DVD's and cable rights.

you must be joking.

 

[Downhere]

you must be joking.

How am I joking? The studio does not keep 100% of the theatrical earnings. They usually, on average, get 55% (and that's being generous considering studios usually get less of a percentage for the international earnings when it is all said and done). X3 cost over 200 million to produce plus marketing, at best, the film broke even from the theatrical earnings and therefore they made their profit from the home video market and cable rights.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

How am I joking? The studio does not keep 100% of the theatrical earnings. They usually, on average, get 55% of the earnings when it is all said and done. X3 cost over 200 million to produce plus marketing, at best, the film broke even from the theatrical earnings and therefore they made their profit from the home video market and cable rights.

Theatres get a lot more than that.

Having worked in a movie theatre myself, I know that the theatres hardly get anything from the price of admission. That's why food and drink prices are so high at the movies, and why they show movies late to get people in line for food, because that's how they make their money.

 

[Spider-Vader]

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.

Most good 90-100 minute films in the past couple years have been animated, if not all of them.

While IRON MAN's must have been largely composed of kids.

When I saw it on opening night I don't remember any little kids.

 

[Downhere]

Theatres get a lot more than that.

Having worked in a movie theatre myself, I know that the theatres hardly get anything from the price of admission. That's why food and drink prices are so high at the movies, and why they show movies late to get people in line for food, because that's how they make their money.

While it's true that theaters make most of their money from the concessions, they do get a cut of the tickets sold. Some studios have a system worked out depending on the movie that they will receive 100% of the first weekends take and then 75% of the second week, 50% of the third week, etc. Or, they may set a set percentage that the theaters will keep. That's for the domestic haul...internationally, studios can get a great deal less than that...usually 40% or less.

Here's a link that sheds some light on what Studio's make on films.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money

 

[BMM]

But 300 wasn't popular because it was accurate to the source material.

Right. I’m not arguing it was.

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.

Sorry, I should have clarified my position. I don’t think that Warner Bros. produced Watchmen from the perspective that the movie was made for the fans by the fans. The studio viewed the movie as just another investment. Albeit, a costly one. Otherwise, I agree. For the most part, it is more faithful than other comic book adaptations, but it isn’t faring well given what it cost to produce the movie. But what does that prove that we don’t already know? We know faithfulness isn’t necessarily an indicator of audience reception and subsequent box office performance. The Fantastic Four franchise is proof of that.

I believe Warner Bros. made a mistake thinking they could capture lightning in a bottle twice with Snyder. They probably hoped they could achieve the same, or better, success with Snyder, especially if they gave him more money. My point is the same formula didn’t work. There is a lesson to be learned from that. Likewise, I hope Fox has learned a lesson from the performance of its films. The same formula doesn’t always work. In Fox’s case, micro managing and truncating films for a quick buck in the short run isn’t necessarily best for the studio or its films in the long run.

 

[BMM]

I think IRON MAN pulled those numbers purely out of hype.

And what of the other $219+ million dollars (which nearly matches the entire theatrical run of The Last Stand) that Iron Man pulled in beyond its opening $98 million and in an incredibly competitive summer to boot? The movie grossed nearly $600 million dollars. That’s due to more than just hype.

I guess we can't hold X-Men to the same level of expectations we have for Spiderman, Batman, and even Iron Man in terms of box office success.

Financially, not yet... in some cases, not even close.

 

[Downhere]

with X3, FOX's tactics worked wonders that first weekend BUT word of mouth - and I don't mean negative word of mouth, just parental word of mouth, alerted the masses that the film was dark (unlike IRON MAN) and not very kid friendly.

Umm, both films seemed to have a similar tone of "darkness." There were some dark elements to Iron Man (the whole being captured by terrorists subplot) and there were some elements of darkness to X3 (Phoenix and the unnecessary killing of main characters). Honestly, X2 was the most tonally dark X-Men movie to date. X3's dark tone was forced, which didn't help its cause.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Umm, both films seemed to have a similar tone of "darkness." There were some dark elements to Iron Man (the whole being captured by terrorists subplot) and there were some elements of darkness to X3 (Phoenix and the unnecessary killing of main characters). Honestly, X2 was the most tonally dark X-Men movie to date. X3's dark tone was forced, which didn't help its cause.

I don't agree with this at all.

People that watched X3 with me (both fans of the comic and non fans) expressed a great deal of praise for the intensity they felt from the death of Xavier.

It wasn't AT ALL unnecessary.

On the contrary - it gave the film a sense of drama/doom that the other two don't have.

I really dont see why X2 came off "tonally dark" to you, same goes with Iron Man.

Favreau himself said he directed a "light" film.

The only other film aside of X3 that gave me that emotional thrill ride was TDK when The Joker began to destroy Gotham one step at a time.

 

[Downhere]

I don't agree with this at all.

People that watched X3 with me (both fans of the comic and non fans) expressed a great deal of praise for the intensity they felt from the death of Xavier.

It wasn't AT ALL unnecessary.

On the contrary - it gave the film a sense of drama/doom that the other two don't have.

The death of Xavier was unnecessary, as was the death of Cyclops. With Xavier, that whole sense of drama/doom was stripped away with that hokey way of bringing him back. Cyclops was killed off because that was the only way the writers saw fit to include Cyclops due to the actor's schedule conflicting with the film, which goes back to Fox rushing X3. Then you have the cure which would have been an interesting twist but was made pointless due to those affected having their abilities come back (i.e. Magneto, which alludes to other cured mutants gaining their abilities back at some point). There was some tension in X3, but it lacked the emotional response that X2 provided. The ending of X2 had more tension and emotional resonance than the whole of X3.

I really dont see why X2 came off "tonally dark" to you, same goes with Iron Man.

Considering X2 is considered to be the franchise's Empire Strikes Back (One of the, if not the most, tonally dark Star Wars films), how can you not see it as "tonally dark?" And with Iron Man, considering the fact that terrorism is at a high these past years, that part of the story seemed dark in nature, especially for a comic book film which pulled in families and children.

 

[Peter McCabe]

The death of Xavier was unnecessary, as was the death of Cyclops. With Xavier, that whole sense of drama/doom was stripped away with that hokey way of bringing him back. Cyclops was killed off because that was the only way the writers saw fit to include Cyclops due to the actor's schedule conflicting with the film, which goes back to Fox rushing X3. Then you have the cure which would have been an interesting twist but was made pointless due to those affected having their abilities come back (i.e. Magneto, which alludes to other cured mutants gaining their abilities back at some point). There was some tension in X3, but it lacked the emotional response that X2 provided. The ending of X2 had more tension and emotional resonance than the whole of X3.

the story of X3 would have centered on Wolverine regardless.

it was all about Logan's willingness to do the necessary thing in the end.

*You're basically saying the very intense and EPIC death of Xavier is instantly forgettable when you learn he's alive.

That I cannot agree with.

*The ending of X2 (as was the entire third act) dragged and did little for me. Jean Grey's death was anything but intense and that has alot to do with the fact that Singer decided on killing her off very late into principal photography.

Xavier's death was planned all along. It was the defining moment of X3 that proved this "Phoenix" was indeed an imminent threat.

I always tell fans that disliked the deaths in X3, "What if she hadn't killed anyone?"

How can one be a danger if one is not creating danger?

Killing Scott made her unstable. Killing Charles made her terrifying.

The term "Dark Phoenix" couldn't be more fitting than how it was in X3.

Like I said, the fast 100 minute pace and the waste of supporting mutants are my only real issues with the picture.

for me X3 is the tragedy of Charles Xavier and Jean Grey.

 

[Downhere]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never!

For me, X3 is the tragedy of X3.

 

[King of Kings]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never!

For me, X3 is the tragedy of X3.

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

 

[Peter McCabe]

We will never agree Mr. McCabe. Never!

 

[Downhere]

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

X3 being the tragedy of X3 is all inclusive.

 

[X-Maniac]

Really, what about Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut surely that has to be a major tragedy?

Vinnie was cast by Matthew Vaughn...who since claimed his version of the film would be better even though he never had the guts to stick around and go through with it.

Since no person alive has the shape/build of Juggernaut, any movie version is always going to be a toned-down version.