• 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.

SpaceWolf

Banned
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.

This strikes me as a bizarre attitude. Surely value for your money would be getting the opportunity to see a great, entertaining film that you would happen to enjoy. Denying yourself the opportunity just because it's half an hour or so shorter in comparison a lot of other overlong, massively padded blockbusters seems like a mistake. I mean, I've seen movies at the cinema that were only about 80 minutes and I had a great time.
 
Is it weird that this is the Superhero film I'm the most excited for atm? These ultimate team ups are starting to feel bloated in comparison
 

Monocle

Member
You can just rewatch LOTR: Return of the King Extended Edition. I think the ending is longer than the runtime for this movie.
Personally I think that movie would have been much better if it had ignored all of the characters we went on such an emotional journey with and cut to Gandalf untying his hair, hopping on an eagle, and headbanging his way into the sunset.
 
A shorter run time is fine, I trust Taika. His last two films are on the short end and are excellent. A Thor movie has the potential to be the best in the MCU. What a time to be alive.
 
Well, as long as there's enough time to develop Hela, Executioner, Valkyrie, and Grandmaster, sure.

Hopefully the cool stuff like Fenrir and Surter don't feel shoehorned in.
 

orochi91

Member
You can just rewatch LOTR: Return of the King Extended Edition. I think the ending is longer than the runtime for this movie.
I marathon the extended trilogy at least once a
Year

:V

So I take it you skipped Dunkirk as well?
Yup, I intend to pick up the DVD sometime in the future.

This strikes me as a bizarre attitude. Surely value for your money would be getting the opportunity to see a great, entertaining film that you would happen to enjoy. Denying yourself the opportunity just because it's half an hour or so shorter in comparison a lot of other overlong, massively padded blockbusters seems like a mistake. I mean, I've seen movies at the cinema that were only about 80 minutes and I had a great time.
For what it's worth, I'll still be watching the film, but probably on Netflix or DVD at a later date.

Either that or I can tell my buddy to pay for my ticket since he rarely ever watches films in theatres without me.
 

Bulby

Member
Sounds great for me. I think a lot of Marvel movies are too long. Guardians 2 was the worst offender so far.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
I'm excited as hell for Ragnarok but I just wonder how Taika is gonna fit what looks a like a lot of stuff into just an hour and a half without making it feel rushed.
 

SpaceWolf

Banned
"Hey man, you want to see this film called Casablanca they're playing down the street? I hear it's supposed to be like...the greatest film of all time or somethin!"
"I don't know, man. How long is it?"
"Uh...100 Minutes."
"100 MINUTES?! Fuck that, I want some bang for my buck! Let's just watch the Cure for Insomnia Directors Cut at home instead!"
 

VegiHam

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.

I agree with this. Fuck off am I paying like ten quid or whatever for not even two hours of entertainment I'm too broke.

"Hey man, you want to see this film called Casablanca they're playing down the street? I hear it's supposed to be like...the greatest film of all time or somethin!"
"I don't know, man. How long is it?"
"Uh...100 Minutes."
"100 MINUTES?! Fuck that, I want some bang for my buck! Let's just watch the Cure for Insomnia Directors Cut at home instead!"

Terrible example, I'm absolutely not paying crazy money to watch some old ass black and white film that's on telly all the time anyway and probably on youtube by now; I'm not a millionaire.
 
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.

2014-08-07-shallow-thumb.jpg


As we all know Movie Value is weighed by Time and Money.

Its why Rotten Tomatoes ratings are based on Movie Length, not the quality of the film's story and photography.
 

orochi91

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

Homecoming and Gaurdians 2 were quite lengthy, but the execution and pacing were fantastic; the minutes flew by, in my opinion.

I hope you have a big TV and a really good sound system

42" Sony Bravia and PlayStation Pulse Elite Headphones.

I'm pretty much set, just need that Dunkirk Blu Ray.
 

ZeoVGM

Banned
Indeed, especially Marvel films as of late.

Homecoming and Gaurdians 2 were quite lengthy, but the execution and pacing were fantastic; the minutes flew by, in my opinion.

Yeah, I prefer longer superhero movies.

That being said, I don't expect or need a 2 1/2 hour Thor movie. But there's no way the final cut is only an hour and 40 minutes.
 

Ibuki

Banned
I hope you have a big TV and a really good sound system

After seeing Dunkirk in 35mm, I am looking forward to seeing the digital 4K version as well...

Anyways, back on topic. I am happy to see more movies with shorter runtimes, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on any value if the movie is good.

I refuse to believe Orochi ain't just trollin.

He's trollin.

..right?

At first I wasn't sure, but the DVD post threw me a bit.
 

Einchy

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

Yeah, this is neither a good or bad thing but if someone told me there was an equally good cut of the movie that was an hour 40 and 2 hours 15 or something, I'd pick the latter. I wanna see as much of these characters doing their thang.
 

SpaceWolf

Banned
Terrible example, I'm absolutely not paying crazy money to watch some old ass black and white film that's on telly all the time anyway and probably on youtube by now; I'm not a millionaire.

For your information Sir, my playful vignette was actually set in the chaotic and uncertain time of 1942 when the film just came out, where people also had inexplicable access to the Cure for Insomnia BluRay.

Also, fuck it, I would love to watch Casablanca in a cinema. You kidding me? That would be great.
 
I mean, this is a Gaming Forum and this mindset is VERY prevalent on the gaming side soooo...I fear for the worst.

That's what I was thinking but I was also pretty sure that ridiculous argument had taken a lot of knocks over the last couple years, so I wasn't sure whether dude was parodying a near-death argument on that side, or if he thought this was like, a lazarus pit where bad arguments were made young and crazy again.
 

VegiHam

Member
My playful vignette was actually set in the chaotic and uncertain time of 1942 when the film just came out, where people also had inexplicable access to the Cure for Insomnia BluRay.

Mate if it's 1942 I'm probably in the war or doing a rationing or something so I'm even less likely to see it. Maybe in America y'all can spend the 40s chilling at the cinema for cheap but in Great Brexit we have Nazis to fight.
 
Damn, Taika Waititi gets to stick to his guns.

His previous films:
Boy - 87 min
What We Do In The Shadows - 86 min
Hunt for the Wilderpeople - 101 min
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
Good, we need shorter movies, your typical movie is too long nowadays.
 

ZeoVGM

Banned
lol @ the idea of boycotting a movie because it's short.

Listen, I want it to be longer. 2 hours, preferably. But if it's an hour and 40 minutes but still gets great reviews, I'm there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom