• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

All New All Different MCU Rumor Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taraqual

Words words words
Validated User
Let's see, of the top of my head I can think of a few 3 hour+ epics I've enjoyed in the theater (some caught as revivals) ... Schindler's List , The Right Stuff, The Godfather: Part II, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind ...

Now, is is ambitious of them to think End Game belongs in such august company? Probably.
Honestly, most of those movies felt overlong and indulgent because at least a few scenes existed just to show off the cinematography or slow-burn character shots or things like that. I mean, as much as I love movies about the space program and liked most of the actors, the last time I watched The Right Stuff I had to fast-forward through several segments that felt pointless.

That's not to say they weren't good movies, or my tastes haven't changed in possibly bad ways (I get so bored with stories playing it coy when we have a really good idea what we'll see next), just that when I think of really long movies, most of them haven't been worth it.

But as some of these films creep toward 2.5 hours, and now to 3 hours, I find that what I'm missing is half a chance to breathe between action, comedy, or character shots. Like, in Infinity War (2 hours and 40 minutes long), I kept wanting them to take a few more minutes to, for example, show how more ordinary people were reacting to Thanos' invasion, or shots of the Wakandan airships doing something, or Shuri spending more time talking with Banner, or whatever. They've got more than enough characters and events to deal with. If they use this time to help tell the story in a less frenetic way, I'm fine with that.

If, however, I'm in the theater trying not to yawn as Chris Evans and Scarlett Johanssen make sadface at each other for ten minutes, then I'll definitely be unhappy with this decision.
 

Robert A. Rodger

Aspiring Kermit
Validated User
Not surprising but disappointing all the same. Fellowship of the Ring is good at nearly 3 hours, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything else that long that's also a quality movie. Past two and a half hours or so and the question arises about whether the story would be better off split or made into a mini-series. I had the small hope that winnowing down the cast would allow for a tighter movie.

Ah well.
I, for one, have great faith in the Russo Brothers, and if they can't get it under 3 hours I don't think it will be because of bloat and filler.
 

Qwa'ha Xahn

High King of the Known Worlds
Validated User
I, for one, have great faith in the Russo Brothers, and if they can't get it under 3 hours I don't think it will be because of bloat and filler.
This. If this was some first timer, or, even like, Bryan Singer or somebody- this might be cause for concern. But the Russos? Odds are way better than even that this means three hours of awesome.
 

Kevin Mowery

WAUGH!
Validated User
Well, they were going to have limited options currently given the CW lineup; Wednesday would have been about it, since every other night had super shows or super-adjacent ones on the CW. They might have had a little more slack on the first season.
Yeah, I deleted a paragraph that mentioned that the CW has pretty much locked down every night for at least some superhero or genre programming. So it's not as bad as when everyone piled their genre programming on Friday night, presumably because nerds would be home. But still.
 

Donald Stone

Registered User
Validated User
A:E marks the end of a huge chapter of films 10 years in the making. In this case I’m okay with them taking a little extra time.
 

Taraqual

Words words words
Validated User
This. If this was some first timer, or, even like, Bryan Singer or somebody- this might be cause for concern. But the Russos? Odds are way better than even that this means three hours of awesome.
I don't think they're perfect, by any means. But I think they've delivered plenty of good entertainment so far and I'm happy to see what they do with three hours. If this were a Bryan Singer or Zach Snyder film, I would already not be watching it for reasons unrelated to running length.

A:E marks the end of a huge chapter of films 10 years in the making. In this case I’m okay with them taking a little extra time.
Yeah, me too, ultimately. The only real downside I can see is if this makes another billion dolllars, which it probably will, then more people will start taking the wrong lessons and releasing three-hour Fast and Furious films or something.
 

Blizzardborn

Hiding in a snowdrift
Validated User
Three hours means I'm not watching this in theaters. My back can't handle sitting in those seats that long.
 

Kurotowa

Weird Science Nut
Validated User
Three hours means I'm not watching this in theaters. My back can't handle sitting in those seats that long.
Can you shop around to see if any of your reasonably local theaters has upgraded its seating? Mine ditched the little airline chairs for big comfy recliners, with assigned seated too so we don't have to get there super early for good seats. Fewer seats per showing, but I expect they figure it's the better business model when home viewing is so easy these days. Maybe you can find your own theater that's done similarly.
 

That Other Guy

Registered User
Validated User
I'm terms of quality modern movies at 3 hours, the ones that spring to mind are Wolf of Wall Street, Titanic and Blue Is The Warmest Colour
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom