The Run Time Length Thread

[chaseter]

If you people get my thread closed I will beat you all. Better yet...why don't you just close it Bamfer and when we get word then it can be reopened for discussion on the matter. Otherwise, this will just continue.

 

[FaT_tONle]

The relevance is completely present. If you can't see that then you are not paying attention. Origins is repeating the exact same mistake... let's cram in as MANY characters as we can... from Gambit, to Cyke, to Emma... in that just in case this movie underperforms or flops... we will have presented these characters if the opportunity for a First Class film does not present itself in the future. It's as relevant as what happened to the Spiderman trilogy... what will probably happen to the Batman trilogy... they just automatically assume the fourth film or next film in the series will never happen and they cram as much as they can into the third film.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

If you people get my thread closed I will beat you all. Better yet...why don't you just close it Bamfer and when we get word then it can be reopened for discussion on the matter. Otherwise, this will just continue.

If you started the thread, that's your choice. Just say the word.

 

[Peter McCabe]

The relevance is completely present. If you can't see that you are not paying attention. Origins is repeating the exact same mistake... let's cram in as MANY characters as we can... from Gambit, to Cyke, to Emma... in that just in case this movie underperforms or flops... we will have presented these characters if the opportunity for a First Class film does not present itself in the future. It's as relevant as what happened to the Spiderman trilogy... what will probably happen to the Batman trilogy... they just automatically assume the fourth film or next film in the series will never happen and they cram as much as they can into the third film.

I agree, they seem to have this stupid tendency to overdose on characters during 3rd installments.

SM3 didn't need the full Venom reveal, just the Venom setup - but at least they tried to justify it with a 150 minute running time.

I'd love to see this get a 150 minute running time, hell 2 hours and 45 minutes would be EPIC.

I'm really hoping Shuler was using guerilla tactics to gather intel and disoriented us on purpose.

 

[sniktsnakt]

I'd love to see this get a 150 minute running time, hell 2 hours and 45 minutes would be EPIC.

I'm really hoping Shuler was using guerilla tactics to gather intel and disoriented us on purpose.

<heart seizure>

Oh my gosh. Just the thought of a 2 1/2 hour movie makes me want to cry for joy.

Too bad it's probably not going to happen.

 

[dark_b]

My guess is she let that cat outta the bag for a purpose, perhaps to test the masses on whether or not this should be a movie as long as TDK and Watchmen.

with all due respect .........every short FOX movie was hated. why would she need to test us?

its fact that comicbook fans like long movie. or at least 2 hour movie.

there is no logical reason to test people if they want a short movie.


you are working for FOX or you are trolling.

 

[Celestial]

It's an interesting idea that she might have given the hint that it was "wayyy under two hours" so that Fox execs could see how unpopular that would be amongs fans.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

with all due respect .........every short FOX movie was hated. why would she need to test us?

its fact that comicbook fans like long movie. or at least 2 hour movie.

there is no logical reason to test people if they want a short movie.

Exactly, not to mention the new Street Fighter and Dragonball movies from Fox were both under 90 mins and despised by the fans.

It's an interesting idea that she might have given the hint that it was "wayyy under two hours" so that Fox execs could see how unpopular that would be amongs fans.

Lets hope so, anything less than 115 mins and i'm not seeing this.

 

[danoyse]

It's an interesting idea that she might have given the hint that it was "wayyy under two hours" so that Fox execs could see how unpopular that would be amongs fans.

I think it's even more interesting that no one has heard from her again since she said it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think it's even more interesting that no one has heard from her again since she said it.

Agreed, IMO it either means she was very wrong, or VERY right about the run-time.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I still don't understand how people can right off a film based on run time.

So say the film comes out, it's 90minutes, that's it, you'd completely write it off? That just seems silly to me.

Sure it would be beneficial to everyone if the film was 2-21/2hours long, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good. Same way as it being 90minutes doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

And sure people can come up with countless examples, but you know what? That don't mean ****. This film isn't one of those examples and it can't be put amongst them UNTIL it has been seen.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I still don't understand how people can right off a film based on run time.

So say the film comes out, it's 90minutes, that's it, you'd completely write it off? That just seems silly to me.

Sure it would be beneficial to everyone if the film was 2-21/2hours long, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good. Same way as it being 90minutes doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

And sure people can come up with countless examples, but you know what? That don't mean ****. This film isn't one of those examples and it can't be put amongst them UNTIL it has been seen.

Exactly. There is no basis to base the film on it's running time. I honestly couldn't give a crap how long it is. I think that some fanboys have such blind haterd for Fox because "they screwed fans over!" that they will bash anything that comes out of that studio.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

That last sentence pretty much sums my feelings up on a lot of people.

I'm not a fan of Fox, not ATALL. Well, the modern-day Fox anyway. But to write a film off because of the past is silly. Sure, it will make you cautious or whatever, but to actually write it off? Childish.

It's like Batman and Robin and the stigma that had when Batman Begins was released. People were writing it off because of the past. But it turns out that Batman Begins is one of the best CBMs ever. Mainly due to Chris Nolan admittedly. But last time I checked, Gavin Hood ain't no hack either.

 

[Nevaratoiel]

Well, one thing I'll say. If this movie's run time is less than 120 mins, I'd be a little disappointed. But IF it is less, I won't write it off that easily.

 

[dark_b]

I still don't understand how people can right off a film based on run time.

So say the film comes out, it's 90minutes, that's it, you'd completely write it off? That just seems silly to me.

Sure it would be beneficial to everyone if the film was 2-21/2hours long, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good. Same way as it being 90minutes doesn't necessarily mean it will be bad.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

And sure people can come up with countless examples, but you know what? That don't mean ****. This film isn't one of those examples and it can't be put amongst them UNTIL it has been seen.

it was already 3 times explained why people think like that.

you ignore it or you dont get it .

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No i didn't ignore it and i do get it, I just don't buy it. It's a **** excuse.

Use it as a guide? Sure.

Use it to completely write a film off? Bollox.

 

[dark_b]

after 4 different comicbook films that have the same problem? that is not enough?


hahahahahhahahahhahahah

 

[Ace of Knaves]

after 4 different comicbook films that have the same problem? that is not enough?


hahahahahhahahahhahahah

As I said, using the PAST as a way to actually write a film off is nonsense.

Use it as a guide sure. But because a film is 90 minutes doesn't automatically mean it will be bad, same way that a film that is 120 minutes will automatically be good.

It's a nonsense.

The only way to judge a film is to actually watch it, not look at a piece of text saying "Run time=90 minutes"

 

[WeaponXProject]

I'm really hoping Shuler was using guerilla tactics to gather intel and disoriented us on purpose.

I interpreted as how far into the editing process she is...i don't recall her saying the "running time is well under 2 hours". All I heard was a blip...

All I here is how far they were into the editing process. It's a cut and edited blip...

 

[Downhere]

I interpreted as how far into the editing process she is...i don't recall her saying the "running time is well under 2 hours". All I heard was a blip...

She stated that the running time of the film was well under 2 hours. At least, that's what I heard when I listened to the audio.

 

[WeaponXProject]

She stated that the running time of the film was well under 2 hours. At least, that's what I heard when I listened to the audio.

I just listened to it? She never says running time and goes from talking about Storm being cut from it to saying were still editing and it's well under two hours but were not done with the editing process.


Last I heard this was another movie I saw called the Fall when they EDIT: excuse me, spoke in production that the movie was at 80 minutes in the editing process and the movie is much much longer than that.

I don't see where people automatically assume they have a running time when it was months before editing was done.


For instance: Bale and cast of Terminator Salvation saw a very unfinished version of their movie and it wasn't done editing. Apparently it was shorter than they thought but some scenes that weren't edited yet weren't in the shot they saw. I think T4 will be like 1 and 50 minutes or a little more...and I haven't heard anyone complaining on their boards.But I'm more worried about it being PG13

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Terminator shouldn't be pg-13

 

[Peter McCabe]

after 4 different comicbook films that have the same problem? that is not enough?


hahahahahhahahahhahahah

 

[Sam Fisher]

Yea Terminator shouldn't be pg-13

Why not? i said in the TS thread that rating doesn't make a movie, just like a running time doesn't. Just because the first three were rated R doesn't mean TS needs to be to be good.

 

[chaseter]

As I said, using the PAST as a way to actually write a film off is nonsense.

Use it as a guide sure. But because a film is 90 minutes doesn't automatically mean it will be bad, same way that a film that is 120 minutes will automatically be good.

It's a nonsense.

The only way to judge a film is to actually watch it, not look at a piece of text saying "Run time=90 minutes"

How is it nonsense? You go see a Fox superhero movie that is short and it is a bad movie...there is evidence to that. So, it would be warranted that when another short movie is about to come out, it will probably be bad. No one can say it will definitely suck and no one can say that it will be great until we watch the movie...that is the truth. But, it is called probability and if the run time for this is short then the probability that it will suck based on previous examples is extremely high.