The Amazing Spider-Man Forum

• Add

http://www.hypable.com/2012/04/30/amazing-spiderman-running-time/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=amazing-spiderman-running-time

Those guys over at hypable claim that the runtime for the Amazing Spiderman is 90 minutes. I know it's stupid to believe a website like that, but it got me to thinking, if the Spiderman is really that short? Could it lead to another Jonah-Hex type disaster. A movie killed by it's length, because characters leave left and right, and nobody has any good back-round stories.

I hope to god that's not the case. I'm looking forward to the Amazing Spiderman, and don't want it to be an epic fail.

or maybe the story is that tight, that is doesn't need another hour of filler.

@Scott757:

Most of the worst superhero films run under 110 minutes (Batman and Robin aside).

I think you have to wait until the official runtime to be sure.

Runtime doesn't ensure quality.

@FinalDasa:

Yes, but it does tell you how much effort they put in the characters. The Amazing Spiderman should be at least 2 hours with credits (which I hope it is), 90 minutes isn't going to cut it.

They had a link in the article to AMC Theatres' page for the film so that is the official runtime.

90 minutes does seem short for a film that is establishing the characters for future films and while longer doesn't mean better I'm gonna agree with you and say that I think a film like this needs to be at the 2 hour mark

@Moviemaniac: No one knows for sure what the movie will contain or how it will handle character development. Considering we already had a Spider-Man trilogy less than 10 years ago maybe they won't need to go over every detail of the origin story. Or maybe it never leaves high school and it's just Peter Parker discovering more about his father.

A skilled filmmaker doesn't need 2 hours to explain every character and explore every idea, 90 minutes means nothing until the film actually comes out.

I don't think this is a problem if it is true. A shorter length might force them to make a tighter movie. I've seen plenty of two plus hour movies that try to cram everything they can and it ends up being a mess.

I'm okay with that. Perhaps the whole origin part is told concisely since we've seen it all in the previous films. Frankly, I think a lot of movies are being artificially lengthened lately.

Besides, a shorter run-time means more showings and that translates into more money.

My only worry is that with it being 90 minutes (if that really IS the case), that critics will hate it, and moviegoers will hate it too, it will open well, but drop like a rock on it's second weekend.

Also I can't for the love of god think of a superhero film that ran under 100 minutes that was actually well received.

@Moviemaniac said:

My only worry is that with it being 90 minutes (if that really IS the case), that critics will hate it, and moviegoers will hate it too, it will open well, but drop like a rock on it's second weekend.

You're thinking that critics and audiences will hate it because of its runtime? As others have said, it's all about quality, not quantity.

@Moviemaniac said:

Also I can't for the love of god think of a superhero film that ran under 100 minutes that was actually well received.

It depends on how you measure success. The original TMNT movie cost $13 million to create and netted back $135 million. The animated version a decade later earned back triple its production budget. Both ran 90 minutes. Additionally, the Men in Black sequel grossed over $400 million worldwide and while not necessarily a superhero movie, it is a undeniably a comic book film. Good stories can be told in just an hour an a half. Stand By Me, The Road Warrior, First Blood, Airplane, and Office Space are all around 90 minutes. Annie Hall won Best Picture in 1977 at 94 minutes. So, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the running time. While it might be hard to find superhero films that fit the criteria, that has as much to do with there being very few superhero movies which are successful at all. There have been quite a few in recent years but if you look beyond the last 5 years, the number dwindles significantly. Back in 1984, Supergirl ran over two-hours. It really would have been better at 80 or so minutes long.

90 minutes certainly sounds disappointing. The origin alone would take like what? 45 minutes of the film? It's kinda silly to expect it to be concise and tigh considering every promotional material has been bragging about how this is "the untold story" of how Spiderman came to be.

Even though I actually find 90 minutes to be the runtime of most of my favorite films, it is a little odd for a Superhero movie. Oh well--runtime doesn't mean much, and, regardless of quality, I will see it for the Emma Stone.

It's fairly short, but I'd take a movie that's 90 minutes long and of quality than a 2+ hour fuckfest like Spider-Man 3.

Marc Webb just had an interview and stated that the movie is closer to two hours long. So 90 minute runtime rumour is debunked.

@RockinKemosabe:

Unless the studio butchers the film.