• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Thor 3: Thor Ragnarock runtime is shortest in MCU: 100 min

Status
Not open for further replies.
‘Thor: Ragnarok’ Director Taika Waititi Reveals Surprising 100 min Runtime

“The cut right now, I reckon it’s about 100 minutes. It’s not gonna be a very, very long film. I think that stories are better when you leave them wanting more, and this film moves at a clip, it’s got stuff happening all the time. I think people are still gonna feel exhausted by the end, they’ve been on this big journey and stuff, so I don’t think we need the film to be three hours.”

Give me a haircut if old.
 

Velcro Fly

Member
I like things that don't overstay their welcome, whether it is movies, video games, or books. I'm almost always okay with a movie being shorter as opposed to being too long and bloated.
 
Sounds great. Can't believe I'm so hyped for the new Thor movie, but Taika is an amazing filmmaker. What We Do In The Shadows is a modern comedy classic.
 

Sulik2

Member
The first thing I have heard about this movie that worries me. They have a ton of story threads and characters and are only going to cover it in 100 minutes? Hopefully that doesn't mean all our time with the villains or character moments are gone for the sake of a snappy pace.
 

Anung

Un Rama
Good. All these 2 hour plus movies are busting my balls. A tightly paced Thor movie with minimal flab makes me way more excited.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I can't believe I'm actually excited for the sequel to Thor: Dark World.

OMfeT0U.gif
 

GraveRobberX

Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Smart, no reason to prolong the story if it can be told in that much time
No filler or boring sequence to appease a good run time

Also movie theaters and the studio must be hella happy, can get in more screenings now
 

orochi91

Member
I'm skipping it then.

Ticket prices are pretty high here, and I want value for my money.

For a blockbuster film, ~1.5 hours simply isn't acceptable.
 

SilentRob

Member
I'm skipping it then.

Ticket prices are pretty high here, and I want value for my money.

For a summer blockbuster, ~1.5 hours simply isn't acceptable.

Oh my god please, please, please don't tell me you are serious. Please. Restore my faith in humanity.
 

5taquitos

Member
I'm skipping it then.

Ticket prices are pretty high here, and I want value for my money.

For a summer blockbuster, ~1.5 hours simply isn't acceptable.
That's an odd way to pre-judge a movie. I'd take a 90 minute powerhouse that keeps me riveted in my theater seat over a 2.5 hour slog any day.
 

ZeoVGM

Banned
Not really a good thing for me to hear. 100 minutes is too short, in my opinion.

(I think the final cut will be longer.)
 

Monocle

Member
Ehh, sometimes more is better. It's hard to tell without seeing it but I prefer my films with some meat.
 

mnannola

Member
I'm skipping it then.

Ticket prices are pretty high here, and I want value for my money.

For a summer blockbuster, ~1.5 hours simply isn't acceptable.

You can just rewatch LOTR: Return of the King Extended Edition. I think the ending is longer than the runtime for this movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom