Cut down the movie running time? (First post, woot)

[Kratos]

Ok, so here's my 2 cents worth.

How about cutting down the running time on he Transformers 3 movie?

One of the problems 1 ans 2 had in my opinion was the fact they were close to 3 hours running.

Personalluy, my attention spans for movies are about 1 hr 45 mins to 2 hours.


What do you think? Would that kind of run time be better for Transformers?

[CesarCardoso]

it could be 6 hours long and i wouldnt mind. bring it on!

[IHeartBayhem]

Aside from Bad Boys, Bay has never made a film under 2 hours.

Personally, I hope TF3 is the same runtime as ROTF. At the very least, as long as the first film.

[the_almighty_moo]

heh as long as it isnt on par with Dune, I dont care

[Mech_1000]

I'm hoping for a 3hr+ finale

[wingzero]

What ? Shorter runtime? Are you out of your mind or are you following an agenda here?
So, you want Transformers3 movie to fail why exactly? Are you getting paid by the competition to do this, perhaps?
If Transformers3 movie is anything below the 140minutes runtime and drops down to the 120-130minutes range it's surely going to either flop badly or bomb at box office.
Yes, IronMan2 is shorter than Transformers movies and it's a success BUT if it was 20-30minutes longer it would have been a way higher success and it's not the 3D gimmick thing that would give the movie higher box office gross, it would inflate it yes but it wouldn't be a real higher revenue.

Transformers3 must be no less than 140minutes for sure and it should be in the 160-180minutes range to be felt by viewers as the best and stronger movie of the trilogy as well as the first trilogy ending itself, it needs to deliver higher quality action, CGI, plot and characters wise for a longer runtime in order to be able to be felt more epic than the first one and more action/CGI driven than the second one all in the same package for an all new adventure.
If it was shot in full IMAX for the whole 140-180 minutes runtime it would have been outstanding and no useless 3D conversion.
Paramount managers should understand from IronMan2 success that a movie doesn't need the 3D gimmick trick in order to be a huge box office hit.
Transformers3 with 2D IMAX has the chance to go way beyond the $1billion worldwide boxoffice barrier BUT if the runtime it's too short and viewers worldwide feel the movie lacking and the majority would surely notice with a shorter runtime then the movie would either underperform or even flop or bomb because people might reject it despite an higher overall quality.

Transformers3 no less than 140minutes in theaters to be a huge success. And if not in theaters at least on DVD/Blu-Ray an extended 180minutes Director's Cut release would ensure way higher profits to Paramount/Dreamworks than they could ever think of.

[Drake]

Or maybe it's just his OPINION that a shorter runtime would be better? Geez.

[fu2kimus_prime]

What ? Shorter runtime? Are you out of your mind or are you following an agenda here?
So, you want Transformers3 movie to fail why exactly? Are you getting paid by the competition to do this, perhaps?
If Transformers3 movie is anything below the 140minutes runtime and drops down to the 120-130minutes range it's surely going to either flop badly or bomb at box office.
Yes, IronMan2 is shorter than Transformers movies and it's a success BUT if it was 20-30minutes longer it would have been a way higher success and it's not the 3D gimmick thing that would give the movie higher box office gross, it would inflate it yes but it wouldn't be a real higher revenue.

Transformers3 must be no less than 140minutes for sure and it should be in the 160-180minutes range to be felt by viewers as the best and stronger movie of the trilogy as well as the first trilogy ending itself, it needs to deliver higher quality action, CGI, plot and characters wise for a longer runtime in order to be able to be felt more epic than the first one and more action/CGI driven than the second one all in the same package for an all new adventure.
If it was shot in full IMAX for the whole 140-180 minutes runtime it would have been outstanding and no useless 3D conversion.
Paramount managers should understand from IronMan2 success that a movie doesn't need the 3D gimmick trick in order to be a huge box office hit.
Transformers3 with 2D IMAX has the chance to go way beyond the $1billion worldwide boxoffice barrier BUT if the runtime it's too short and viewers worldwide feel the movie lacking and the majority would surely notice with a shorter runtime then the movie would either underperform or even flop or bomb because people might reject it despite an higher overall quality.

Transformers3 no less than 140minutes in theaters to be a huge success. And if not in theaters at least on DVD/Blu-Ray an extended 180minutes Director's Cut release would ensure way higher profits to Paramount/Dreamworks than they could ever think of.

I don't want it to have a shorter runtime either. But what makes you so sure that audiences would automatically reject a shorter movie?

[r-type]

What ? Shorter runtime? Are you out of your mind or are you following an agenda here?
So, you want Transformers3 movie to fail why exactly? Are you getting paid by the competition to do this, perhaps?

Who are you to question another member like this? Not the first time either. Let people have their opinions, or counter them accordingly. You aren't necessarily helping things to the contrary either.

[wingzero]

Who are you to question another member like this? Not the first time either. Let people have their opinions, or counter them accordingly. You aren't necessarily helping things to the contrary either.

So I would be the evil one here because I am not so naive to think that there are no people with hidden agenda working for the competition to damage the Transformers franchise,uh?

Why are you so irritated by my questions then? And why are you attacking me?
I just replied to the user that opened this thread as I felt it was right to, who are you to question me instead almost trying to find a way to get me banned simply because you don't like my questions, uh?

I didn't insult anyone, I just don't like any possible competitors plant to play tricks against Transformers franchise and Mr.Bay fans. And the internet is full of competitors plants paid to hurt the franchise trying to change the mood against Transformers movies preventing them from being a boxoffice success.

Unfortunately for me (because I'd love to work like at ILM or Digital Domain being a programmer with video coding background) I am no one just a long time Michael Bay fan of his movies as well as Transformers franchise and not involved in the showbiz nor the franchise itself but this doesn't mean that I must stay silent and be so naive to not see competitors plants on forums everywhere trying to bring down the franchise everytime a new movie is being produced. And unfortunately many people are being affected and trust more negative paid so-called-professional reviewers and negative comments on forums than their own eyes to judge properly, and competitors markeeters know the trick too well, that's the reason why they keep trying to hurt the franchise.

Then a user on Michael Bay forum requesting Transformers3 movie to be shorter because it would be hard to follow the movie if its runtime was as long as that of the first two movie... well, he does sound pretty fishy indeed. And you defending him and attacking me now sound either too naive or fishy as well. Anyone that watched any Michael Bay movie before knows that his movies are practically always beyond 120minutes and that is what his fans like.. and actually Transformers2 issues have been caused by what is missing there, the scenes that couldn't be completed due to production issues and writers strike, so asking for a shorter runtime is either nonsense or is following an agenda.

Then yes, I must be evil for not trusting such a silly request.

[Ed Fuego]

Unfortunately for me (because I'd love to work like at ILM or Digital Domain being a programmer with video coding background) I am no one just a long time Michael Bay fan of his movies as well as Transformers franchise and not involved in the showbiz nor the franchise itself but this doesn't mean that I must stay silent and be so naive to not see competitors plants on forums everywhere trying to bring down the franchise everytime a new movie is being produced.

That's a long sentence.

Anyway,

I think it's a little bit of an overreaction to accuse the OP of being a "plant" or whatever based on the comment and question asked. In the end, you may be right, but at this point it's a little bit of an overreaction. Just a little.

Ed Fuego

[r-type]

Lmao!!!!!

[nelson]

Oh hell no, for the amount of $$$ being shelled out for movie tickets nowadays, it better be 2+ hours!

[Jazz935]

Oh hell no, for the amount of $$$ being shelled out for movie tickets nowadays, it better be 2+ hours!

I completely second this!!!!^^ especially when it comes to action movies.

[Drake]

And what would be the point of this plant? To somehow persuade someone who already knows what he wants to do it differently? Or maybe to sway hearts and minds?
My guess is that he is in favor of a shorter running time. I can see why, though I think it's fine at 2-2.5 hours. Maybe I'm a plant too?

[jamjam101]

Yeah, I hope its 2+ harperr. This is the concluding chapter as far as we know so they have a lot to wrap up. If we really want character development then 2+ hrs is the way to go

[Drake]

It's a delicate balance between what we want as fans, and how long people are willing to watch giant robots fight, and fight... fight fight fight fight fight... fight fight fight... fight fight fight... the Optimus and Megatron shoooooooow! Sorry... hehehe... needed to throw in that Simpsons reference.

[Bot Girl]

How about long enough for the plot to get from the beginning, through the middle and to a satisfying conclusion, with sufficient time for lots of action AND good character development for our favorite bots and cons. I want the movie to be exactly THAT long! :-)

[Mech_1000]

The final battle scenes in the TF movies last 45 minutes or so. TF3 would have to quickly wrap up a plot, a point, and everything in between in 45 minutes to fit the time schedule you're hoping for. I think that has a greater chance to cause the movie to fail. I just really hope we have the chance to be a bit more attached to some/most of the characters (good or evil) this time around. Jetfire was cool--but I didn't really care that he died at the end If too much time is cut from the movie, this sort of development gets slashed and cut.

[Ultra Magnus]

Character development, especially with several characters, will require a longer movie so that each character at least gets 'showcased' if not developed.

I'm more 'concerned' about the pacing of the movie than its length. It's been my experience that movies over 2 hours can start to feel like they're dragging on if they're not well paced and/or don't keep the audience engaged or interested. I'd gladly sit through a 2.5hr+ movie if the pacing was good, but if the movie 'feels slow', then I'll be impatient and will want things to 'hurry up', and I'll be reluctant to go back for a second viewing. (In general, I find Michael Bay movies good in this regard.)

[CesarCardoso]

wow, things are really heating up!! I find it unreal for people to think that 20 or 30 people voicing their opinion on a internet forum would actually change a multi million dollar project. Lets see how that would play out:

MBay: "I want to do this, and this, and that...."
Steven Spielberg: "Ok, and i think we sould do this, that and even more of what not..."
MBay checks his Forum,
MBay: "No, wait, scratch that, the 600+ fans on my forum said we should do this instead"
SS: "Aw shucks, and i wanted the other thing instead. OK do what they want".

Talk about twilight zone! Its fine to voice our opinions in a forum, to get us through the waiting. But to actually think this would make a difference is just mad.

[Mech_1000]

Some internet / forum stuff can be taken seriously, i.e. getting Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus Prime is a good example of that.

[Kratos]

What ? Shorter runtime? Are you out of your mind or are you following an agenda here?
So, you want Transformers3 movie to fail why exactly? Are you getting paid by the competition to do this, perhaps?
If Transformers3 movie is anything below the 140minutes runtime and drops down to the 120-130minutes range it's surely going to either flop badly or bomb at box office.
Yes, IronMan2 is shorter than Transformers movies and it's a success BUT if it was 20-30minutes longer it would have been a way higher success and it's not the 3D gimmick thing that would give the movie higher box office gross, it would inflate it yes but it wouldn't be a real higher revenue.

Transformers3 must be no less than 140minutes for sure and it should be in the 160-180minutes range to be felt by viewers as the best and stronger movie of the trilogy as well as the first trilogy ending itself, it needs to deliver higher quality action, CGI, plot and characters wise for a longer runtime in order to be able to be felt more epic than the first one and more action/CGI driven than the second one all in the same package for an all new adventure.
If it was shot in full IMAX for the whole 140-180 minutes runtime it would have been outstanding and no useless 3D conversion.
Paramount managers should understand from IronMan2 success that a movie doesn't need the 3D gimmick trick in order to be a huge box office hit.
Transformers3 with 2D IMAX has the chance to go way beyond the $1billion worldwide boxoffice barrier BUT if the runtime it's too short and viewers worldwide feel the movie lacking and the majority would surely notice with a shorter runtime then the movie would either underperform or even flop or bomb because people might reject it despite an higher overall quality.

Transformers3 no less than 140minutes in theaters to be a huge success. And if not in theaters at least on DVD/Blu-Ray an extended 180minutes Director's Cut release would ensure way higher profits to Paramount/Dreamworks than they could ever think of.

Lol. Your logic is severly flawed. How old are you? 13, 14?

Anyways, shorter movies do not necessarily mean bomb. With the huge amounts of cash movies number 1 and 2 raked in, there's no reason why there couldn't be PLENTY of Transformer action and interaction with humans, make it enjoyable, and be no longer than 1 hr 45 mins to 2hrs. However, that's just my opinion.

Transformers 2 was an enjoyable film overall, but I feel as if it were drawn out a LOT more than it needed to be.

For example, I feel like the movie could've ended with the cliff hanger of Prime's death, and I would've been just fine with it. As a Transformers fan I'm well aware prime would've come back eventually. Then the second half of the movie could've been expanded into a third with Prime's resurrection and final battle with the Fallen. It's like they made two movies but squeezed them into one when I watched Transformers 2.

[Bot Girl]

Lol. Your logic is severly flawed. How old are you? 13, 14?

Anyways, shorter movies do not necessarily mean bomb. With the huge amounts of cash movies number 1 and 2 raked in, there's no reason why there couldn't be PLENTY of Transformer action and interaction with humans, make it enjoyable, and be no longer than 1 hr 45 mins to 2hrs. However, that's just my opinion.

Transformers 2 was an enjoyable film overall, but I feel as if it were drawn out a LOT more than it needed to be.

For example, I feel like the movie could've ended with the cliff hanger of Prime's death, and I would've been just fine with it. As a Transformers fan I'm well aware prime would've come back eventually. Then the second half of the movie could've been expanded into a third with Prime's resurrection and final battle with the Fallen. It's like they made two movies but squeezed them into one when I watched Transformers 2.

First of all, Kratos, welcome, but, please play nicely.

Second, many, proabaly most, of the people who went to see ROTF are not fans of the series, or may be never even seen the series, they may not "know" that Prime has a tendency toward ressurection. Leaving this movie at the death of Prime would have made for a very bad movie experience for most viewers, including those familiar with the cartoons. The way Bay and writers put this story together, it made for a satisfying resolution to the story, and a victorious pack of heroes, which is expected and, almost neccessary in this type of movie.

[Kratos]

First of all, Kratos, welcome, but, please play nicely.

Second, many, proabaly most, of the people who went to see ROTF are not fans of the series, or may be never even seen the series, they may not "know" that Prime has a tendency toward ressurection. Leaving this movie at the death of Prime would have made for a very bad movie experience for most viewers, including those familiar with the cartoons. The way Bay and writers put this story together, it made for a satisfying resolution to the story, and a victorious pack of heroes, which is expected and, almost neccessary in this type of movie.

I'll play nicely if I'm not accused of being a plant.

Although, now that I think about it, I almost wish I WAS a plant. I hear they get paid pretty well.

Joking aside, the point is there's no reason why a great Transformers movie couldn't be 1hr 45 mins. But that's just my opinion.