and more THIS!
Spider-Man 3
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
According to this JHM article, Spidey 3 is over three hours long!! 
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -peek.aspx
And I thought Spidey 2 was a long film....
So excited.....
Who can pick just one? 
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -peek.aspx
And I thought Spidey 2 was a long film....
So excited.....
Sure!Can you enter more then one choice? Smile
Who can pick just one? You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Yeah, that's just what I was thinking!
(Plus that whole Mary Jane and Gwen Stacey thing--wow, I wonder if 3 hours is even ENOUGH?? J/K
)
This will be better than Titanic!
(Just remember to use the restroom beforehand...ha ha...J/K)
I wonder....if the film is REALLY good....could it possibly be nominated for Best Pic? (The Sixth Sense was, after all--as was Ghost and even The Excorcist.)
(Plus that whole Mary Jane and Gwen Stacey thing--wow, I wonder if 3 hours is even ENOUGH?? J/K
)This will be better than Titanic!
(Just remember to use the restroom beforehand...ha ha...J/K
)I wonder....if the film is REALLY good....could it possibly be nominated for Best Pic? (The Sixth Sense was, after all--as was Ghost and even The Excorcist.)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 823
- Joined: February 22nd, 2007
- Location: Belgium
also, the possibility of a 4th one seems to get bigger every day.
Both Kirsten and Tobey seem to be turning around,
Tobey will only do it if the story is worth it. (wich is the only reason a 4th should be made anyway)
I really want to see the Lizard, Carnage and (a serious version of) Mysterio someday!!
Both Kirsten and Tobey seem to be turning around,
Tobey will only do it if the story is worth it. (wich is the only reason a 4th should be made anyway)
I really want to see the Lizard, Carnage and (a serious version of) Mysterio someday!!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25869
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Wow!
King Kong paved the way for this, so I am excited that more epic-length popcorn movies are coming. I hope that it can keep the momentum going. I didn't feel Spidey 2 was overlong, but there's a danger of having too much of a good thing. After all, I loved Kong, but the Extended cut - only 13 minutes longer - really <I>did</I> feel like an overlong film.
King Kong paved the way for this, so I am excited that more epic-length popcorn movies are coming. I hope that it can keep the momentum going. I didn't feel Spidey 2 was overlong, but there's a danger of having too much of a good thing. After all, I loved Kong, but the Extended cut - only 13 minutes longer - really <I>did</I> feel like an overlong film.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
I think the LOTR films did as well.King Kong paved the way for this,
Also, just curious--if SR had its footage put back in, would it total 3 + hours as well?
Other long blockbusters in history: (3+ hours)
Titanic
The Godfather and The Godfather part II
Gone With the Wind (I think
)Lawrence of Arabia
The Ten Commandments
Ben-Hur
*****************************************************
I don't want to say "Schindler's List" because of course that film is in a different class than these, but the truth is that, being B + W AND over three hours long, no one thought the film would make ANY money. But it wound up being quite successful commercially, believe it or not. A LOT of people went to see it all over the world. I think it shows that if a film is well-directed, (even B + W and with extremely serious subject matter), it can have a long running time AND be successful.
Spielberg gave all the money to Holocaust foundations.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 823
- Joined: February 22nd, 2007
- Location: Belgium
New trailer of Spiderman 3 (yes, yet another one ) with lots of venom.
http://media.movies.ign.com/media/041/0 ... ids_1.html
( it's trailer #3)
I have to say, this is the best trailer I've seen of S3 so far.
The emotional content is presented so strong in this one and it has lot's of great & unseen footage.
) with lots of venom.http://media.movies.ign.com/media/041/0 ... ids_1.html
( it's trailer #3)
I have to say, this is the best trailer I've seen of S3 so far.
The emotional content is presented so strong in this one and it has lot's of great & unseen footage.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25869
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I knew my Kong reference would throw some people.
What I meant by that is that most of the films you mentioned were "event" movies...films built up by their creators and expected to be "worthy", epic blockbusters. They were either based on big books (Godfather) or had serious Academy aspirations (Ten Commandments, Lawrence, Titanic) or both (Gone With The Wind).
Even the Lord Of The Rings films, being based on "important" literature, were seen as being long but understandably epic length...there was no complaining that these films <I>shouldn't</I> be these lengths.
The win for Best Pic on Return Of The King <I>did</I> validate that those kinds of fantasy films could be "worthy" as well, but really that win gave Jackson the clout to make his King Kong whatever length he wanted.
Now, Kong is a popcorn movie...nothing more and certainly nothing less. Popcorn movies used to be 90 minutes or so, but they've crept up to being roughly 2 hours. Most good, decent blockbuster pictures - those that win technical awards but little else - your science fiction, comic book, adventure movies - are all around the 2 hour mark.
What Kong did that nothing else had done before was to say "hey, why can't a summer blockbuster popcorn movie be epic length?"
Yes, I know Kong came out at year's end, but the point is that the film singlehandedly sustained the attention, built up credible characters, not least Kong himself, and suggested that, if the elements were in place, a well-made popcorn movie could hold and work at three hours-plus.
Kong never set out to snag a Best Picture. It's a monster movie. If it HAD won Best Picture or been nominated, it would have been down to the fact that it was a great film, pure and simple (not saying it is, but that's what would have gotten the support).
So, my point is that Kong, which was conceived and presented as a classic monster, audience driven piece of escapist entertainment, like nothing of that length had been before.
Made purely for fun.
No truly world-changing epic themes, no true-story backdrops, no weight on its shoulders from being adapted from a popular book. Just a fantasisc "ride film". And it worked at three and a quarter hours.
Now the doors are open for filmmakers to expand on that fairly self-imposed 2 hour/2.5 hour (also prefered by the exhibitors who like to get an extra show in). Raimi has a mega-anticipated and successful franchise from which he's springboarding, which helps no end. He knows this is going to get two or three prints into every multiplex, so he has the amount of showings covered.
The question is now - post King Kong - whether we're going to get a huge amount of director indulgence, or indeed if we're seeing a new format: the epic, special effects, comic book popcorn movie...
What I meant by that is that most of the films you mentioned were "event" movies...films built up by their creators and expected to be "worthy", epic blockbusters. They were either based on big books (Godfather) or had serious Academy aspirations (Ten Commandments, Lawrence, Titanic) or both (Gone With The Wind).
Even the Lord Of The Rings films, being based on "important" literature, were seen as being long but understandably epic length...there was no complaining that these films <I>shouldn't</I> be these lengths.
The win for Best Pic on Return Of The King <I>did</I> validate that those kinds of fantasy films could be "worthy" as well, but really that win gave Jackson the clout to make his King Kong whatever length he wanted.
Now, Kong is a popcorn movie...nothing more and certainly nothing less. Popcorn movies used to be 90 minutes or so, but they've crept up to being roughly 2 hours. Most good, decent blockbuster pictures - those that win technical awards but little else - your science fiction, comic book, adventure movies - are all around the 2 hour mark.
What Kong did that nothing else had done before was to say "hey, why can't a summer blockbuster popcorn movie be epic length?"
Yes, I know Kong came out at year's end, but the point is that the film singlehandedly sustained the attention, built up credible characters, not least Kong himself, and suggested that, if the elements were in place, a well-made popcorn movie could hold and work at three hours-plus.
Kong never set out to snag a Best Picture. It's a monster movie. If it HAD won Best Picture or been nominated, it would have been down to the fact that it was a great film, pure and simple (not saying it is, but that's what would have gotten the support).
So, my point is that Kong, which was conceived and presented as a classic monster, audience driven piece of escapist entertainment, like nothing of that length had been before.
Made purely for fun.
No truly world-changing epic themes, no true-story backdrops, no weight on its shoulders from being adapted from a popular book. Just a fantasisc "ride film". And it worked at three and a quarter hours.
Now the doors are open for filmmakers to expand on that fairly self-imposed 2 hour/2.5 hour (also prefered by the exhibitors who like to get an extra show in). Raimi has a mega-anticipated and successful franchise from which he's springboarding, which helps no end. He knows this is going to get two or three prints into every multiplex, so he has the amount of showings covered.
The question is now - post King Kong - whether we're going to get a huge amount of director indulgence, or indeed if we're seeing a new format: the epic, special effects, comic book popcorn movie...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Kong never set out to snag a Best Picture.
I know, but I still think it deserved a nom!
Maybe not a win, but a nom in any case....just for the sheer spectacle, thrills, and old-fashioned romantic/adventure/epic feel that is so sadly absent from films today.....
The question is now - post King Kong - whether we're going to get a huge amount of director indulgence, or indeed if we're seeing a new format: the epic, special effects, comic book popcorn movie...
That would be heavenly!!!
Sort of like those old "sword and sandal" flicks of the 1950s like Ben-Hur, etc...which won the Oscar but was a big box office hit as well, sort of like Titanic.
Although personally, even though it was a very good film, Titanic deserved the attention and all but it's anyone's guess how it swept the Oscars that year....
I thought it was extremely well directed and Kate Winslet, one of my fave actresses, was wonderful....but Leo was just soooooooo bad here, he almost sinks the film....no pun intended. I thought the screenplay had some great character development of Rose as well as fascinating commentaries on the Victorian age vs. today's technological times....but that whole class commentary on upper class vs. lower class was just so horribly, horribly muddled and poorly expressed, particularly with Leo as Jack. (He's poor all right but gosh darnit he's happy! ) Ioan Gruffud, (aka Mr. Fantatic) who played the lifeboat captain who saves Rose at the end of the film, was about Leo's age then. He would have been a thousand times better as Jack....even with that script. Cal and even Rose's mother Ruth are as one-dimensional as you could get....but IMO the greatest fault of this film is that the boat sinking took place in the last forty minutes of the film. Before that it's just 2 and a half hours of sets, sets, sets and the audience being treated to a very versatile costume department. More than a thousand people died when that boat sank--not just an imaginary artist played by the guy from Romeo and Juliet. Shouldn't the film have focused more on them as well? OK, that's my Titanic rant.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!