The Runtime thread

[Mjölnir]

The thing is, this is Thor. It's steep in inherently epic mythological and cosmic elements. And most of the best Thor stories that I've read have been pretty grand and epic in scope. The Kirby and Simonson stuff, which this movie is taking inspiration from, is certainly that. So it feels kind of like a waste of potential if you don't take full advantage of that.

Heck that's been one of the major complaints about the last two Thor films. That they don't take full advantage of the material available to them, and that neither film has felt big or epic enough. So are they going to do that for a third movie in a row, I hope not.

And when you have films like the last two Captain America movies, or The Dark Knight, or The Dark Knight Rises, or Wonder Woman, etc which are all pushing two and a half hours, or even over two and a half hours, and yet the audience doesn't mind because they're entertained, then don't tell me that a Thor movie cannot be similar because I don't buy it.

There's nothing saying that it can't be, but epic also doesn't have to be about time. There's plenty of epic movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Last of the Mohicans, Hero, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc that are 2 hours or less. There's of course great epics that are really long as well but the diversity shows that being epic is more about the content than run time.

It's also pretty clear that Waititi isn't going for a LotR style film with Ragnarok.

 

[Loki882]

Yeah and that's the problem, waste of potential. The Ragnarok story IS epic. Also I wouldn't say that most of those films count as "epics" actually.

Not to mention trying to introduce multiple new characters, at least one new world, catch up on old characters and what's become of them, etc. It's a lot to try and pull off.

I mean can we get ONE freaking Thor movie that takes full advantage of the material? Iron Man and Cap did. Batman did, Superman did, and now Wonder Woman has as well.

 

[RoastBeast]

Where are they selling tickets?

Although they are not yet selling tickets, AMC has changed their "remind me" button to "advance tickets" today, and added a 2:10 runtime... I think that means very, very soon.

(eta: I should say my local one. Might be diff elsewhere?)

 

[Mjölnir]

Yeah and that's the problem, waste of potential. The Ragnarok story IS epic. Also I wouldn't say that most of those films count as "epics" actually.

Not to mention trying to introduce multiple new characters, at least one new world, catch up on old characters and what's become of them, etc. It's a lot to try and pull off.

I mean can we get ONE freaking Thor movie that takes full advantage of the material? Iron Man and Cap did. Batman did, Superman did, and now Wonder Woman has as well.

They are all found on various lists of epic films, and I'd say they are all more epic than any of the examples you gave.

As for Ragnarok I just disagree with you. I'm not saying that there aren't other versions of it that could be good on film but what I'm seeing this far looks absolutely awesome and has a unique feel to it.

As for taking full advantage of the material I wouldn't agree on WW. That didn't stand out to me at all more than what Thor has had. Probably even less so since the big characters from their gallery were handled better for Thor than for WW. Odin was played better than Hippolyta and Loki is far greater than Ares was. Trevor does more than Foster though. The warrior's three and Sif haven't stood out as much, but WW only had one more character on their level and the rest of the amazons were even lesser. And of course Hemsworth is playing Thor more competently than Gadot plays Diana.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Although they are not yet selling tickets, AMC has changed their "remind me" button to "advance tickets" today, and added a 2:10 runtime... I think that means very, very soon.

(eta: I should say my local one. Might be diff elsewhere?)

It's definitely everywhere. I'm not even in the US and it shows 'Advance Tickets' when I go to the AMC Ragnarok page.

They are all found on various lists of epic films, and I'd say they are all more epic than any of the examples you gave.

As for Ragnarok I just disagree with you. I'm not saying that there aren't other versions of it that could be good on film but what I'm seeing this far looks absolutely awesome and has a unique feel to it.

As for taking full advantage of the material I wouldn't agree on WW. That didn't stand out to me at all more than what Thor has had. Probably even less so since the big characters from their gallery were handled better for Thor than for WW. Odin was played better than Hippolyta and Loki is far greater than Ares was. Trevor does more than Foster though. The warrior's three and Sif haven't stood out as much, but WW only had one more character on their level and the rest of the amazons were even lesser. And of course Hemsworth is playing Thor more competently than Gadot plays Diana.

100% agreed to all. WW, while being a good (if overrated IMO) film isn't a good example. And it's utterly beyond me how someone can claim that a film hasn't taken advantage of the source material before they've even seen it anyway.

 

[BigThor]

100% agreed to all. WW, while being a good (if overrated IMO) film isn't a good example. And it's utterly beyond me how someone can claim that a film hasn't taken advantage of the source material before they've even seen it anyway.

WW is definitely overrated and isn't very epic in scale at all.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I liked Wonder Woman. Liked not loved. Definitely one of the better "DCEU" films. But yeah totally overrated. Not worthy of the near universal praise heaped upon it in my opinion. I certainly would never put it in the same category as a film like The Dark Knight.

I would also like to give this film (Thor: Ragnarok) a chance before judging it. I have some reservations but I like what I've seen so far and I am more excited than I've been for a Marvel film in a long time.

 

[BigThor]

I liked Wonder Woman. Liked not loved. Definitely one of the better "DCEU" films. But yeah totally overrated. Not worthy of the near universal praise heaped upon it in my opinion. I certainly would never put it in the same category as a film like The Dark Knight.

I would also like to give this film (Thor: Ragnarok) a chance before judging it. I have some reservations but I like what I've seen so far and I am more excited than I've been for a Marvel film in a long time.

What do you think about the new Thor vs Hulk footage?

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

What do you think about the new Thor vs Hulk footage?

Love it! I like how they are teasing this contest.

I'm trying to keep what I see to a minimum at this point though. I hate spoilers.

 

[Gamma Ra]

There's nothing saying that it can't be, but epic also doesn't have to be about time. There's plenty of epic movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Last of the Mohicans, Hero, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc that are 2 hours or less. There's of course great epics that are really long as well but the diversity shows that being epic is more about the content than run time.

It's also pretty clear that Waititi isn't going for a LotR style film with Ragnarok.

The word "epic" itself implies a long story or poem. In order for a movie to be epic, we need to see characters that go through trials that cause them to grow internally, emotionally, persevere through conflict or fail, etc...

 

[Mjölnir]

The word "epic" itself implies a long story or poem. In order for a movie to be epic, we need to see characters that go through trials that cause them to grow internally, emotionally, persevere through conflict or fail, etc...

A long poem doesn't mean that it's a long film (although a long film can just be seen as the opposite of a short film, so in that regard it's right), poems are in general fairly short. One example of a very famous epic poem is Beowulf, turned into a film with a run time less than 2 hours.

I maintain my position, a film can be epic without being really long and there's lots of films that have shown that.

 

[Gamma Ra]

A long poem doesn't mean that it's a long film (although a long film can just be seen as the opposite of a short film, so in that regard it's right), poems are in general fairly short. One example of a very famous epic poem is Beowulf, turned into a film with a run time less than 2 hours.

I maintain my position, a film can be epic without being really long and there's lots of films that have shown that.

This is the definition of "epic" that I referenced.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/epic

"epic
noun [ C ] US. /ep·ik/

a book or movie that is long and contains a lot of action, usually about a subject from the past

literature An epic is also a long poem about events in the past, often involving gods or kings and queens:

The Iliad is the most famous Greek epic."

 

[Mjölnir]

This is the definition of "epic" that I referenced.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/epic

"epic
noun [ C ] US. /ep·ik/

a book or movie that is long and contains a lot of action, usually about a subject from the past

literature An epic is also a long poem about events in the past, often involving gods or kings and queens:

The Iliad is the most famous Greek epic."

As I already said, what a long film is can be a matter of definition as well, and something that would vary with the times since the average length of films have changed quite a bit. Look up the term epic film on Wikipedia for example and it doesn't talk about length at all, save for a short part of mentioning that some just call long films in general epic and don't think it has anything to do with the content, but it's obvious why that just gets a single line.

And there's plenty of lists of great epic films that contain several movies under 2 hours, so clearly the word is often used for the content and not the run time, which makes far more sense. It's about scope.

Even in writing things change. The Iliad isn't what you'd call a very long book these days and The Odyssey (which I'd say is more famous these days) is fairly short.

 

[Gamma Ra]

As I already said, what a long film is can be a matter of definition as well, and something that would vary with the times since the average length of films have changed quite a bit. Look up the term epic film on Wikipedia for example and it doesn't talk about length at all, save for a short part of mentioning that some just call long films in general epic and don't think it has anything to do with the content, but it's obvious why that just gets a single line.

And there's plenty of lists of great epic films that contain several movies under 2 hours, so clearly the word is often used for the content and not the run time, which makes far more sense. It's about scope.

Even in writing things change. The Iliad isn't what you'd call a very long book these days and The Odyssey (which I'd say is more famous these days) is fairly short.

I actually looked up the definition on Wikipedia before. It mentions budget and mythological tones among other things. I also looked up what the average movie today is and it's is around 110 minutes long.

https://stephenfollows.com/are-hollywood-movies-getting-longer/

 

[Mjölnir]

I actually looked up the definition on Wikipedia before. It mentions budget and mythological tones among other things. I also looked up what the average movie today is and it's is around 110 minutes long.

https://stephenfollows.com/are-hollywood-movies-getting-longer/

As far as that goes we're in agreement.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

What a silly argument. I think everyone knows that if you want to make your movie more epic, you simply make it longer. The longer the movie, the more epic it will be. Like Waterworld!

 

[BigThor]

What a silly argument. I think everyone knows that if you want to make your movie more epic, you simply make it longer. The longer the movie, the more epic it will be. Like Waterworld!

 

[The_Manhunter]

So Fandango still has it at 2 hours 10 minutes...

 

[HammerDown]

I think the "runtime" thingy is a buried subject.

 

[Gamma Ra]

What a silly argument. I think everyone knows that if you want to make your movie more epic, you simply make it longer. The longer the movie, the more epic it will be. Like Waterworld!

You totally missed the point. That's not the argument.

 

[Finarfiniel]

I think the "runtime" thingy is a buried subject.

Seriously, the fact that Disney confirmed the runtime to AMC still isn't good enough for some people apparently.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Seriously, the fact that Disney confirmed the runtime to AMC still isn't good enough for some people apparently.

They did? I actually did not know. I've been staying away from here because I don't want to risk a spoiler. Seriously, I do not want my Ragnarok experience ruined in any way lol t:

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yeah, 2hr 10min looks to be the correct runtime

 

[Krystal]

This site says 120 minutes.......

https://www.pathe.nl/film/20722/thor-ragnarok

 

[BigThor]

Oooooooh 10 minutes, what shall we do.