Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 17 Aug 2017




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Jun 2006
Notes left: 1924
Last seen at: Katz Street
Time is money, and it costs to use the resources they had. They could get away with it by doing scenes in areas that do not require the set peices or anything else they have, but if it doesn't fit into the vision the director has then theres little point. Money does effect a movies runtime in many cases. The low budget movies you mentioned may have had different creative processess and different visions behind them allowing them longer runtimes.
Besides, I wasn't suggesting that was the definitive answer, just tossing ideas around for a matter of little significance.
And do you honestly think your on a different level than anyone here? That your just more "in touch"? Keep stroking that ego.

_________________
Image
WARNING: Some Parts of Reality May Seem Violent or Cruel.


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Sep 2009
Notes left: 491
The amount of excuses being made for what's looking to be a b grade film is kinda astounding here.

You can't just say "time is money" and actually expect that shit to fly. It does not somehow cost a dickton more money to add 30 minutes to the runtime. 9/10 times it's an EFFORT issue and seeing how this is a videogame movie I'm gonna say it would be a safe bet to expect it to be more of an effort problem.

But yes, let's make this an ego thing, totally. Because this forum totally isn't in the minority for people actually defending how cheesy this thing looks when overwhelmingly the response I've seen from every other place ever has been a lot of people rolling their eyes at the marketing and expecting it to not be received very well, especially after how poorly received the first film was.

_________________
Your weaboo is showing


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Jun 2006
Notes left: 1924
Last seen at: Katz Street
I wasn't defending it. I'v been vocal about the cheesy aspects of the marketing, but i'm not going to judge the movie or bitch about it till it's out, even though I do want to see it. I doubt other peoples opinion really matters.
But I also mentioned, more than money, the directors vision. Maybe Bassett didn't want or need any more time. Who knows or should honestly care. Like I said, I was just throwing it out there more than trying to say that it was all about the money. I said alot more than just "Time is money".

_________________
Image
WARNING: Some Parts of Reality May Seem Violent or Cruel.


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1684
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
Falcon, all you've done is complain endlessly about this movie. If you dislike it so much, why do you even care? So maybe other people don't think it looks bad. Who cares?


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 Oct 2009
Notes left: 2523
Falconv1.0 wrote:
The amount of excuses being made for what's looking to be a b grade film is kinda astounding here.

You can't just say "time is money" and actually expect that shit to fly. It does not somehow cost a dickton more money to add 30 minutes to the runtime. 9/10 times it's an EFFORT issue and seeing how this is a videogame movie I'm gonna say it would be a safe bet to expect it to be more of an effort problem.



We haven't even seen the movie yet. We don't know if it's going to feel rushed or not. We literally don't. An hour and a half seems like it's a short runtime, but that doesn't mean it's going to feel like it when we're watching the movie itself. There's no reason to create a stink past "hey, that sounds like it's a little short".

_________________
Image
Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and more
http://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!


Top
   
 

Woodside Apartments Janitor
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 26 Apr 2004
Notes left: 1134
Last seen at: Lakeside Amusement Park
The REAL question that I WANT answered is -

Why does this film have a budget significantly lower than the first movie? Silent Hill made a decent profit, received relatively good reviews when it was released, and had good numbers in attendance AND I believe it remained in the number 1 spot for 3 weeks straight in the theaters!!! Normally when a film does as good as the first one did, the sequel receives a larger budget to work with to be even better and surpass the original in terms of quality and effects! So what gives? Why did Bassett receive less to work with? Somebody help me out here. . .
Did some investors drop out after Gans and Avery became unattached?

_________________
- Member of the Order -
~ The Sect of Valtiel ~


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Jun 2006
Notes left: 1924
Last seen at: Katz Street
I wouldn't see why they would. It does seem like crap though. I feel the movie deserved a bit more put into it, but I guess doing something a bit different is frowned upon in Hollywood. I really don't think the first movie done so great as to gain so much trust though, but considering I don't look into or care about such things, I wouldn't know. If I like the movie, it was a success in my eyes, because that's all I want and care about. lol Bassett seemed to do decently with what he had.

_________________
Image
WARNING: Some Parts of Reality May Seem Violent or Cruel.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime

Missing since: 04 Mar 2007
Notes left: 3332
Scanman22 wrote:
The REAL question that I WANT answered is -

Why does this film have a budget significantly lower than the first movie? Silent Hill made a decent profit, received relatively good reviews when it was released, and had good numbers in attendance AND I believe it remained in the number 1 spot for 3 weeks straight in the theaters!!! Normally when a film does as good as the first one did, the sequel receives a larger budget to work with to be even better and surpass the original in terms of quality and effects! So what gives? Why did Bassett receive less to work with? Somebody help me out here. . .
Did some investors drop out after Gans and Avery became unattached?


Nobody outside of the production knows and reasons can significantly vary. I wouldn't dwell on it too much. It could be that the producer just estimated from the get go that the budget would be smaller and simply just asked for that amount based on the logistics.

Logitical costs themselves might've dropped. The first movie was largely shot using 35 mm film with some dark portions being shot digitally in high def. Revelation is being shot entirely digitally using 3-D Red Epics. That's significant cost savings right there! One of the big reasons why more studios are moving to digital cameras over traditional film stock cameras. Digital is significantly cheaper and easier to manipulate in Post.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 Oct 2009
Notes left: 2523
I didn't think the original film did that well domestically; it made most of its money overseas, didn't it?

_________________
Image
Beyond the Joystick - game reviews, plot recaps, and more
http://beyond-the-joystick.blogspot.com - Also on Tumblr!


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1684
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
It was about half and half. It made $45 million in the US.


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Sep 2009
Notes left: 491
Wait, are you referring to the first film? According to wikipedia the original was 125 minutes.

125 minutes=90 minutes now?

Also outside of the Sean Bean parts the original film moves at a terrible breakneck pace, so if that was 90 minutes not counting the pointless bits then that doesn't make a good case for this short runtime.

_________________
Your weaboo is showing


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
I don't think the first film moved at a "breakneck speed." I thought it was incredibly slow, and, honestly, the Sean Bean scenes were some of the better ones. If anything needed editing, it was the action scenes.

Simply put, two hours is too, too long for a film like this. That entire exposition scene with Alessa explaining—no, spoon-feeding—the backstory was entirely unnecessary and painful to watch. For god's sake, we have teeth! let us chew.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Rosewater Park Attendant
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 18 Apr 2009
Notes left: 1399
Yuki wrote:
Garmonbozey wrote:
Yuki wrote:
An hour and a half seems really, really short for a story-based film.

I disagree. There are several movies that feel longer than they actually are. It's really just about the pacing.

For instance, Ghost in the Shell is only 82 minutes.


Well, hopefully the pacing will be good in this. I've not seen Bassett's other films, but it's clear he's quite passionate about this one.


I'd say Solomon Kane made some amazing use of its 100 minutes, felt like a real epic.

_________________
Where we're from, the birds sing a pretty song, and there's always music in the air.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Jun 2006
Notes left: 1924
Last seen at: Katz Street
The Adversary wrote:
I don't think the first film moved at a "breakneck speed." I thought it was incredibly slow, and, honestly, the Sean Bean scenes were some of the better ones. If anything needed editing, it was the action scenes.

Simply put, two hours is too, too long for a film like this. That entire exposition scene with Alessa explaining—no, spoon-feeding—the backstory was entirely unnecessary and painful to watch. For god's sake, we have teeth! let us chew.


Its hard to say that when many... many people still complained that nothing made sense. Maybe if done a bit better.

_________________
Image
WARNING: Some Parts of Reality May Seem Violent or Cruel.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
That's because shit got too convoluted.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Moderator
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 11052
Last seen at: In the anals of forum history
Falconv1.0 wrote:
Ryantology wrote:
Why is 90 minutes too short?

Take out all the gameplay and filler from any of the games and you have maybe 30 minutes of stuff if you're lucky.


I want to believe this is a joke.


Most horror movies take a bit longer because it gives the director more time to really immerse the viewer in the scenes and to allow for parts where not a lot happens which the games did as well, especially Silent Hill 2. It's that building sense of dread that really helps the scary scenes and whatnot.

Or we can just bring up how the exposition and shit in the cutscenes apparently totals up to 30 minutes as if that means fucking anything. (It doesn't, by the way.)


Horror movies are not the same thing as horror games. Since you don't seem to get that.

The first movie did a good job building up a sense of dread... for the first hour or so. Once we met the cultists it was talk talk talk talk talk for the most part. There were two action sequences among this which took up perhaps ten minutes.

90 minutes is fine for me.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 03 Feb 2010
Notes left: 122
Last seen at: Tennessee
Its based on Silent Hill 3, which doesn't have some in-depth story that needs 2 hours to tell...94 minutes is plenty of time to tell the story that needs to be told.

If it was Silent 2 or The Room, I could see being a bit worried, but they have much deeper narratives, Silent Hill 3's story is nice and tight....And that's what were getting..


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Sep 2009
Notes left: 491
Wait, you'd want it longer if it were Silent Hill 2, the game with way the hell less detail/twists in the narrative?

wat

_________________
Your weaboo is showing


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 03 Feb 2010
Notes left: 122
Last seen at: Tennessee
Its Silent Hill 3...Its the easiest game in the entire franchise to comprehend(besides maybe Homecoming)....Its an awesome game(due to GREAT Sound Design, Atmosphere and Controls)...But its not the most compelling or complicated story to tell....94 minutes...Right on...


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Official runtime
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Sep 2009
Notes left: 491
But the story is way the hell more complicated, what in the fuck?

I'm going to summarize the two stories here.

A girl got burned alive then split herself into two beings which eventually combined together to form one person (heather) who is then found by the cult from the first game who want her to realize who she is so she can give birth to a God made from her being really buttmad and so she goes and gets this thing called the seal of metatron to stop it but then she finds out that dun work so she takes this drug she had in a locket or whatever and aborts the god etc.

SH2

James got a letter from his dead wife and meets a whore who looks like his wife. He killed his wife, the letter and the woman are just projections of his messed up mind. The end.

I'm not claiming the movie will be as complicated as 3 but to claim the average person, especially if they didn't play SH1, would understand what the fuck is going on is just ludicrous.

_________________
Your weaboo is showing


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: