The Amazing Spider-Man Forum

• Add

Nevermind I saw the trailer before the Avengers film and have to say I'm glad its only 90 minutes, it looks awful to me, hopefully wrong on that one

Studios tend to care about script page count from a pure business perspective, and a number higher than 108 is usually scary to them. This is before any of them even read the damn thing, if the first draft of the movie they hold in their hands is already over two hours, they are already cautious.

(just for reference, 1 page = 1 minute)

The shorter running time could just be a sign that this production was green lights most of the way, how it all will turn out we will have to see.

@RockinKemosabe: yup. I believe I read that on Collider.

@cmpLtNOOb:

Studios are also known for interfering with movies as much as they can, often cutting scenes out in order to add in more showings, while adding in scenes that bring nothing new to the movie.

Maybe they just realized it was't necessary to spend half the movie telling his origin story, which was just told ten years ago.

@Moviemaniac: I've read everything you've written in this thread and now have no idea whether you want it to be longer or shorter.

Length isn't important. Pinkerton is the greatest album ever recorded and it only just breaks the 30 minute mark.

Uh 90 minutes is disapointing.. I prefer good and long movies.

edit: then theres this: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=60239

Man I had hyped myself up for a nice, tightly paced film. Over two hours is long. We'll see how this goes.

@deskp: That's interesting. 136 minutes, so I guess all that internet belly-aching was inconsequential.

@Scott757 said:

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

i don't think it is possible to make a fun super-hero movie that is only 90 minutes.

which is why the movie isn't going to be 90 minutes.

If that rumor is true, then this will be the shortest Superhero film I have ever seen, and that makes me a little nervous. I want it to be tightly-paced, and run at least two hours. I plan to see it anyway

If it's 90 minutes without credits, I've got no problems. With credits is a different story...

@TheFaithfullyDeparted said:

Nevermind I saw the trailer before the Avengers film and have to say I'm glad its only 90 minutes, it looks awful to me, hopefully wrong on that one

whaaaaat. Care to elaborate?

@VioletEyedDragon said:

@Scott757 said:

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

i don't think it is possible to make a fun super-hero movie that is only 90 minutes.

which is why the movie isn't going to be 90 minutes.

It's totally possible to make a fun super-hero movie that's only 90 minutes, it's just rarely done that way. Superhero films are a genre that could do with some pacing tighening, origin stories get in the way and slow down the pace like a motherfucker. I haven't seen it (I plan to), but Chronicle is a lean 83 minutes. One of my favourite films (although not a superhero flick), is 9, which is 80 minutes including a decent chunk of credits. And the pace never lets up there, you don't have the hours that clog up a movie that runs too long. I never saw the trailers for The Dark Knight, and thought it was over at the fake out climax, and the rest just felt too long. Good movie, but didn't need to be so long. Scott Pilgrim only runs around 10 minutes longer than 90, and also benefits from the tighter pace.

So yeah, you can totally make an awesome 90 minute super hero movie. Ain't nothing wrong with shorter running times.

EDIT: Kung Fu Panda 2. Thought of one that I have seen. It's basically a superhero sequel, and far far far FAR better than it has any right being (I loved it), and is 91 minutes. Hits all the emotional and action beats you need, gets in and out and gets shit done.

@Tylea002 said:

@VioletEyedDragon said:

@Scott757 said:

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

i don't think it is possible to make a fun super-hero movie that is only 90 minutes.

which is why the movie isn't going to be 90 minutes.

It's totally possible to make a fun super-hero movie that's only 90 minutes, it's just rarely done that way. Superhero films are a genre that could do with some pacing tighening, origin stories get in the way and slow down the pace like a motherfucker. I haven't seen it (I plan to), but Chronicle is a lean 83 minutes. One of my favourite films (although not a superhero flick), is 9, which is 80 minutes including a decent chunk of credits. And the pace never lets up there, you don't have the hours that clog up a movie that runs too long. I never saw the trailers for The Dark Knight, and thought it was over at the fake out climax, and the rest just felt too long. Good movie, but didn't need to be so long. Scott Pilgrim only runs around 10 minutes longer than 90, and also benefits from the tighter pace.

So yeah, you can totally make an awesome 90 minute super hero movie. Ain't nothing wrong with shorter running times.

EDIT: Kung Fu Panda 2. Thought of one that I have seen. It's basically a superhero sequel, and far far far FAR better than it has any right being (I loved it), and is 91 minutes. Hits all the emotional and action beats you need, gets in and out and gets shit done.

Chronicle and Scott Pilgrim were both great films, but weren't super-hero movies. Kung Fu Panda 2 was, though, and you've got a point there. I guess it can be done. Sometimes.

Most Superhero movies need time to flesh out most of their characters, unless it's a comedy most superhero movies should at least be two hours.

@ashogo: The suit was extremely off-putting to me and I didn't like the idea of Spiderman having gadgets to shoot out his webs (though i do recall that one of my friends said it was closer to some of the comics but I'm not sure about that). Added that together with the scene where you have Spiderman saying "ooooh you found my one weakness small knives" while the line was funny it was way overacted and took the fun out of it for me. That's all of the stuff I remember right away anyway

@Moviemaniac said:

@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.

It doesn't tell you the effort put into the characters at all. The Emperor's New Groove is an animated film that runs at, what, 78 minutes or something? That flick is FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC and the characters are INCREDIBLY developed.

Moreover, what more development does someone need for Spider-Man at this point? People KNOW that story. We don't need to loom on him BECOMING Spider-Man for an hour to get to the action. All of that can be summed up pretty damn quick in about 15 minutes. Hell, if anything, they summed up the exact character of this Spider-Man in the last trailer that came out by simply saying this:

"You know, if you're gonna steal a car, don't dress like a car thief. *robber flicks out knife* You've found my weakness: small knives."

They are actually putting PETER PARKER into this movie, not some drab and emo pussy like Tobey Maguire that can only muster up the balls to use his power with the responsibility it requires by eating a bowl of Wheaties in the morning and having a pep talk in the mirror before going to fucking school!

I don't understand why people feel the need to jump the gun on the quality of a movie because of its running time. Wait until the movie is released. The trailers have been excellent so far, and I'm more than positive that 90 minutes is PLENTY of time for this movie. Sam Raimi's films were cool when we first saw them, but looking back, they are overwrought and do not hold up well AT ALL. I remember thinking Spider-Man 2 was the best shit ever, but going back, the only good thing is Alfred Molina's over-the-top-but-pretty-excellent-still Doc Ock.

@TheFaithfullyDeparted said:

@ashogo: The suit was extremely off-putting to me and I didn't like the idea of Spiderman having gadgets to shoot out his webs (though i do recall that one of my friends said it was closer to some of the comics but I'm not sure about that). Added that together with the scene where you have Spiderman saying "ooooh you found my one weakness small knives" while the line was funny it was way overacted and took the fun out of it for me. That's all of the stuff I remember right away anyway

The "small knives" comment is actually very in-line with Spider-Man from the comics...as would be the gadgets to shoot out his webs. The suit is pretty much ripped directly from Ultimate Spider-Man. If anything, the stuff they've shown so far in terms of visual aesthetic and character aesthetic for Spidey are CLOSER to the comics than the previous films were.

In the end, the quality/time factor will depend on the emma stone/time factor. Because, you know, emma stone.