The Runtime thread

[Krystal]

I would say if the movie even breaks the two hour mark -- then this early information was accurate. If under two hours then surely it was an inaccurate. So if the movie breaks 120 minutes I will be very glad to say I was wrong in questioning Fandango.
If under 120-- then obviously they would have released the wrong run time.
After 2 Thor movies of just under 115 minutes and just under 112-- so 120 (and especially 130) would be a treat.
Of course theaters need to know early, but I have seen theaters get the run time wrong before. The BBFC won't screen the movie till probably mid October-- but I am lookibg forward to being wrong..

 

[Gamma Ra]

That is plenty of time to tell an epic Ragnarok story.

The key word is "epic". You can have a fun and entertaining movie told in 100 minutes, but in order to tell an epic tale you need to really be invested in characters motives which means a much longer runtime. That means we need fleshed out characters, especially with the introduction of those we have not seen before. Captain America Civil War did this extremely well.

 

[Iceman]

The key word is "epic". You can have a fun and entertaining movie told in 100 minutes but in order to tell an epic tale you need to really be invested in characters motives. That means we need fleshed out characters, especially those we have not seen before. Captain America Civil War did this extremely well.

I agree, but I was talking about the 130 minute runtime (rather than 90 minutes which IMO isn't/wasn't enough).

 

[Gamma Ra]

I agree, but I was talking about the 130 minute runtime (rather than 90 minutes which IMO isn't/wasn't enough).

What I'm suggesting is that you need a movie 2 hours and more to tell an "epic" story. So I agree with you.

 

[Iceman]

What I'm suggesting is that you need a movie 2 hours and more to tell an "epic" story. So I agree with you.

Yes definitely. I don't know any films with a short runtime that I consider epic. They can be 10/10 but that doesn't make them epic.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Yes definitely. I don't know any films with a short runtime that I consider epic. They can be 10/10 but that doesn't make them epic.

Exactly the point I've been making ever since we first heard of the possible 100 minute runtime. The major majority of the billion dollar blockbuster movies are well over 2 hours long. With what's been shown so far, it has the potential to hit that mark. I think despite popular opinion most people want and can sit through a long film as long as it's interesting. Well written characters that one feels invested in make a plot interesting.

 

[Iceman]

Exactly the point I've been making ever since we first heard of the possible 100 minute runtime. The major majority of the billion dollar blockbuster movies are well over 2 hours long. With what's been shown so far, it has the potential to hit that mark. I think despite popular opinion most people want and can sit through a long film as long as it's interesting. Well written characters that one feels invested in make a plot interesting.

Yeah, I think people prefer shorter runtimes for cinematic fluff which is just turning up and being entertained by whatever happens to be on for a social thing, but for the biggest films they are willing to take things more seriously and settle in for an epic journey.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Yeah, I think people prefer shorter runtimes for cinematic fluff which is just turning up and being entertained by whatever happens to be on for a social thing, but for the biggest films they are willing to take things more seriously and settle in for an epic journey.

Right.

I just checked out Box Office Mojo stats. Of the top 20 grossing movies worldwide, only two where around an hour and forty minutes all the others are over two hours long. That tells me the average person wants their monies worth in a cinematic experience.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

 

[Iceman]

Right.

I just checked out Box Office Mojo stats. Of the top 20 grossing movies worldwide, only two where around an hour and forty minutes all the others are over two hours long. That tells me the average person wants their monies worth in a cinematic experience.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

Yeah that definitely tells a story. What were the 2 shorter films?

 

[Gamma Ra]

Yeah that definitely tells a story. What were the 2 shorter films?

Frozen and Toy Story 3.

 

[Iceman]

Frozen and Toy Story 3.

Wow, so in live action it's 100%. Case closed.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Wow, so in live action it's 100%. Case closed.

Exactly!

 

[Gamma Ra]

Sorry one mistake. There are three children movies under 2 hours in the top 20. Minions also. 17 are live action.

 

[Krystal]

I agree, for me at least, 2 hours is the minimum for an "epic" movie.
I'm sure many would love to argue the point but that's just my opinion.
That's why I was so bummed at the 100 minute rumor. For me Ragnarok absolutely implies EPIC.

One guy on one of these boards said -- "nothing in the name 'Ragnarok' implies epic."



So a theme that has always been treated as epic in the comics and the very word means the end of creation -- doesn't imply -- or need to be an epic movie?

That's for me is an ignore person -- not a discussion person.

It can be all kinds of fun at 100 minutes -- but it won't be epic under 2 hours -- IMO.

 

[NealKenneth]

Guys I am happy the movie is longer too but honestly the top grossing films mostly being over 2 hours doesn't prove anything because most movies these days are over 2 hours anyway. Out of the top 20 the oldest one is 1997...that was also the last year the average was under 120 minutes.

Another interesting fact. During the 80s and 90s the average movie length dropped to almost 90 minutes, most likely because VHS could only hold two hours or so.

 

[Gamma Ra]

I agree, for me at least, 2 hours is the minimum for an "epic" movie.
I'm sure many would love to argue the point but that's just my opinion.
That's why I was so bummed at the 100 minute rumor. For me Ragnarok absolutely implies EPIC.

One guy on one of these boards said -- "nothing in the name 'Ragnarok' implies epic."



So a theme that has always been treated as epic in the comics and the very word means the end of creation -- doesn't imply -- or need to be an epic movie?

That's for me is an ignore person -- not a discussion person.

It can be all kinds of fun at 100 minutes -- but it won't be epic under 2 hours -- IMO.

I agree with your sentiments on the matter. A movie that implies some semblance of the myth Ragnarok should be epic in and of itself. Add a cast of new characters played by some of the best character actors in film in an ever growing cinematic Marvel universe, the run time should have been a no brainer.

Guys I am happy the movie is longer too but honestly the top grossing films mostly being over 2 hours doesn't prove anything because most movies these days are over 2 hours anyway. Out of the top 20 the oldest one is 1997...that was also the last year the average was under 120 minutes.

Another interesting fact. During the 80s and 90s the average movie length dropped to almost 90 minutes, most likely because VHS could only hold two hours or so.

Point noted but the fact remains that there are absolutely no live action movies under 2 hours that have grossed over a billion in the top twenty and maybe even thirty. So Thor Ragnarok has a better chance of making a billion being over two hours long going by the statistics.

 

[Iceman]

Sorry one mistake. There are three children movies under 2 hours in the top 20. Minions also. 17 are live action.

Ok, so that mistake changes nothing. t:

 

[Krystal]

I don't think Thor and billion go together. It hurts me to say it, but I just don't think it will break even 900.

I think that the first two had people hoping for EPIC and getting too much comedy and too much Earth. I think some of that audience will be hard to get back.

As usual -- I will be glad to be really off base with my pessimism.

 

[Iceman]

If this was the first Thor film it could do crazy numbers for an intro film. But it has the baggage of TDW unfortunately which will dampen numbers to an extent.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Ok, so that mistake changes nothing. t:

I don't think Thor and billion go together. It hurts me to say it, but I just don't think it will break even 900.

I think that the first two had people hoping for EPIC and getting too much comedy and too much Earth. I think some of that audience will be hard to get back.

As usual -- I will be glad to be really off base with my pessimism.

I think Thor Ragnarok is a different beast in that it co-star's the Hulk. Now you have two different fanbases giving the film free advertisement. t: and once the Doctor Strange movie spots go worldwide, even more may come out. Not to mention the movie already has one of the highest buzzes generated after the second trailer hit. If the movie is as good as the trailer, it has a better "chance" of making a billion dollars. I never thought Captain America Civil War would make as much money as it did even though it is a solid movie.

If this was the first Thor film it could do crazy numbers for an intro film. But it has the baggage of TDW unfortunately which will dampen numbers to an extent.

True, but this already has an enthusiastic buzz. So that may be forgiven. Both Marvel Studios Characters that have made it to a third film, that third film grossed over a billion.

 

[Iceman]

I think Thor Ragnarok is a different beast in that it co-star's the Hulk. Now you have two different fanbases giving the film free advertisement. t: and once the Doctor Strange movie spots go worldwide, even more may come out. Not to mention the movie already has one of the highest buzzes generated after the second trailer hit. If the movie is as good as the trailer, it has a better "chance" of making a billion dollars. I never thought Captain America Civil War would mame as much money as it did even though it is a solid movie.

Yeah Hulk can be a bit of an X-Factor here. It's not just that he's Hulk but also that this is a perfect setting for him to excel in.

True, but this already has an enthusiastic buzz. So that may be forgiven.

Hopefully so

 

[Marvolo]

It's all just BS. No way the movie is locked down to an exact runtime 60 days before it's release anywhere in the world.

It happens. The Last Jedi was scheduled to be locked and finished in August according to Rian Johnson. And smaller films usually are finished months or even a year or more before release. It's not hard to believe films large and small can have their runtime locked in two months before release.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Theaters can't schedule until they have a run time. Theaters can't sell tickets until they can schedule. Of course they know the run time about now.

2:10 it is

It happens. The Last Jedi was scheduled to be locked and finished in August according to Rian Johnson. And smaller films usually are finished months or even a year or more before release. It's not hard to believe films large and small can have their runtime locked in two months before release.

 

[Krystal]

Where are they selling tickets?

 

[Loki882]

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.