The Run Time Length Thread

[BMM]

I think we received a fair amount of the Vaughn, Kinberg, and Penn "infamous" six day script... so I doubt I would have had a problem with him actually directing it in place of Ratner. If anything would have been an improvement, it might have been the run-time, as the film may not have fallen victim to an ADHD treatment.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Considering some of those absurd ideas made it into the film, it wouldn't have made a difference. Either way they went down the wrong road on #3.

They made it into the film because by the time Matthew Vaughn got done throwing a temper tantrum like a 10 year old spoiled brat, Brett Ratner didn't have time to make significant changes to the script.

 

[BMM]

What?

 

[Electrix]

They made it into the film because by the time Matthew Vaughn got done throwing a temper tantrum like a 10 year old spoiled brat, Brett Ratner didn't have time to make significant changes to the script.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled brat'.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Yea they had to show that Jean completely lost control and was over taken by the Pheonix. What better way to demonstrate that then killing the people that she thought was holding her back.ie. Scott and Charles.

agreed.

there are seeds of this in X1 and X2 was clearly the begining of the end of the "controlled" Jean Grey.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled little brat'.

from what you said about THOR and his alleged dissatisfaction with X3's production/schedule, it sounds like he's too comfortable.

doesn't like to compromise, not a team player [team is spelled J-A-C-K-M-A-N]

The best approach is the Snyder/Watchmen approach: Its either you do it yourself and break your back doing it or let some other guy do it wrong.

*I still think Ratner did good.

 

[Electrix]

from what you said about THOR and his alleged dissatisfaction with X3's production/schedule, it sounds like he's too comfortable.

doesn't like to compromise, not a team player [team is spelled J-A-C-K-M-A-N]

Vaughn just likes to do things his way. With Kick-Ass no studio would fund it because of it's violence and they wanted to change things (eg. Turn the young girl into a love interest) so he went and made it himself. With X3 he wrote the script with Kinberg and Penn and the studio probably wanted to change too many things for his liking. Both writers said they had some battles, such as not having Jean a mute bystander for the second half of the film.

Brett Ratner, however, was just desperate to make a superhero film. He didn't really care which one aslong as he did one, which is one of the reasons X3 suffered slightly.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/1...eres-nothing-left-in-comics-for-him-to-adapt/

 

[Figs]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vaughn considering not a lot is know about why he left. Creative differences yes. But we don't know enough to call him a 'spoiled brat'.

I've read a few interviews with him quite some time ago(I think it was when Stardust came out)where he said he clearly saw what a pile of **** and how big of a pooch screw X-3 was going to be and said that was the reason he dropped out.

All in all he was mentioning what a lot of us already heard...that the script was being worked on/finished during the **** ing filming.

Temper tantrum my ass. That was a director that did the smart thing and talked a bit of **** on Fox's part, which is usually justified.

 

[danoyse]

Hey everyone...this is getting wayyyy off-topic, so how about moving the discussion here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=466

 

[Peter McCabe]

I've read a few interviews with him quite some time ago(I think it was when Stardust came out)where he said he clearly saw what a pile of **** and how big of a pooch screw X-3 was going to be and said that was the reason he dropped out.

All in all he was mentioning what a lot of us already heard...that the script was being worked on/finished during the **** ing filming.

Temper tantrum my ass. That was a director that did the smart thing and talked a bit of **** on Fox's part, which is usually justified.

if that was his primary concern then that is yet more proof of his inability to take risks when making films, something I cant respect.

Some of the greatest films ever made went into production with incomplete scripts - including GLADIATOR.

*Rumble Fish was 3 weeks into principal photography without a SINGLE page. Coppola gave the actors copies of the book and Rourke was adlibbing 90% of his initial dialogue.

Vaughn is just too soft for guerilla film making aka REAL movie making.

 

[Figs]

if that was his primary concern then that is yet more proof of his inability to take risks when making films, something I cant respect.

Some of the greatest films ever made went into production with incomplete scripts - including GLADIATOR.

*Rumble Fish was 3 weeks into principal photography without a SINGLE page. Coppola gave the actors copies of the book and Rourke was adlibbing 90% of his initial dialogue.

Vaughn is just too soft for guerilla film making aka REAL movie making.

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

You make it sound like it is an absolute recipe for failure.

It is not.

A script is a blueprint. Its supposed to evolve with time. actors will add things, writers will add things, the director will...

Vaughn sounds like he's one of those directors that starts panicking if one thing isn't in place.

I like his films, but not his attitude towards big budget blockbusters that require a little extra sweat to get right.

 

[Figs]

You make it sound like it is an absolute recipe for failure.

It is not.

A script is a blueprint. Its supposed to evolve with time. actors will add things, writers will add things, the director will...

Vaughn sounds like he's one of those directors that starts panicking if one thing isn't in place.

I like his films, but not his attitude towards big budget blockbusters that require a little extra sweat to get right.

I'll PM you since Danoyse already told us to take into another thread.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I'll PM you since Danoyse already told us to take into another thread.

good point

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Bull **** at your so called "Real movie making".

You know what it's all really about...professionalism. You can back up Fox or X-3 all you want but facts are facts.

A movie that the studio pushes to start filming before the script is even done just to meet a deadline instead of rescheduling is very unprofessional.

It does not mean Vaughn is too soft to make films let alone a horrible director.

What you call taking risks(in this situation) is really called being a fall guy or even a 'yes man'.

It has nothing to do with a director's talent when it comes down to leaving a film that is going to be(and pretty much was)half assed due to the studio.

Actually, constantly pushing back a release date and NOT meeting said deadlines is the unprofessionalism, not actually MEETING a deadline.

You really need to stop looking at this from a fanboy perspective. It's a business.

You go into ANY business and see how they react to you not meeting deadlines - if they extend them so that you have all the time you need because you couldn't get the job done, or if they fire you for not doing your job and bring in someone else who can / will.

People act like these directors are such horribly treated victims.

They are employees. They are getting paid, by a movie studio, to get a job done. If they can't get the job done, they get fired.

These movies are an investment by the movie studios. They want results, not whiney crybabies who can't get the job done and cry for more time. I guarantee you that if I am given a deadline at my job that I can't meet, I'm out looking for another job.

These studios are making investments with these movies. They aren't giving the directors a forum to express their creativity. It's a job. It should be treated as such.

Vaughn to me comes off as the unprofessional one, not wanting to meet deadlines and such.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

good point

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.

Yup yup.

Sometimes it doesn't take 2, 2 and a half hours to tell a story.

 

[protocida]

Wolverine running with Leech in a backpack?

Care to elaborate?

 

[chaseter]

good point

*back on topic:

this can be 94 minutes long for all I care.

If the story is good (and it most definitely will be) it'll work just fine.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I won't be happy with anything less that 1hr 45. But saying that, if it is less, I won't write it off completely. As I've said before, they ain't exploring all of Logan's history. This is mainly about his Weapon X days. I would imagine if this is successful they will make a couple more, probably about Japan and Alpha Flight or something. Then we could look at all 3 films as one 6 hour long epic.

 

[chaseter]

1:45 without credits would be fine. 2 hours without credits would be perfect. 90 minutes is not good in any way no matter how much anyone tries to spin it.

 

[Microchip]

Yeah, with the money they're paying to make this movie and the calibre of acting it looks like the cast has given them, you'd think that they'd at least stretch it to an hour. We'll see though.

 

[Peter McCabe]

1:45 without credits would be fine. 2 hours without credits would be perfect. 90 minutes is not good in any way no matter how much anyone tries to spin it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Taken and Mad Max are examples of great 90 minute movies. Actually, I think I might have a Mad Max session tonight. Thanks for reminding me of his awesomness McCabe

 

[chaseter]

Since you are good at statistics, how many 90 minutes movies are actually great critically acclaimed films How many 90 minute movies are in the top 20 biggest box office successes of all time? Get to work with your abacus

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but Chase, why does Wolverine have to be compared to all that? Can't you just watch it as a film and not compare it to others? Well, at least wait until AFTER you have seen it.

Obviously we would all prefer a 2 hour film. But why say "How many 90 minute films are in the top 20 box office successes of all time?" Who cares?