20 set pieces and 150 min runtime.

trilobitepictures · Post by **trilobitepictures** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:17 pm

From Dark Horizons...

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070402i.php

"Collider spoke to Shia LaBeouf at the "Disturbia" press junket the other day and he revealed some juicy "Transformers" bits:

"It's going to be long. He's going to give you a lot. You've got 20 set pieces. You like at Spider-Man and it had five big action sequences -- five set pieces. We have 20, and you've got to get storyline in, you've got to get the narrative in -- so a lot of explanation."

Indeed, so how long will this opus be? "You can't just have robots fighting for no reason. You've got to explain it. The movies going to run, I think, about two and a half," and adds that reps from FX company ILM told him "they'd never worked on anything like this."

Post by **Denyer** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:29 pm

Originally posted by trilobitepictures
The movies going to run, I think, about two and a half,"

I'll be surprised (kids don't do well in very long films, and they do want some of that audience) but pleased if it means the thing isn't choppy.

TSFC · Post by **TSFC** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:53 pm

Well, the Harry Potter movies are all 2 hours + and kids just stay glued to the screen.

numbat · Post by **numbat** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:44 pm

Well, the Harry Potter movies are all 2 hours + and kids just stay glued to the screen.

Alas, something I was unable to hack with the first two...

(Don't get me wrong, I love Ben Hur and the extended LOTR films!)

If it's aimed at a split audience, I can see that happening. Hadn't dreamed it would, but I would be very pleased.

I shall wait and see though - just so long as it's not just 90mins - I reckon that'd kill any chance of it working realistically (with a possibility of introducing the concept to new folks, which they blatantly have to do, and to set up for possible franchise).

I think I'm likely to enjoy on some level anyold hoo, though!

Clogs · Post by **Clogs** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:33 pm

The 'Harry Potter' films were fine by me, but too long for the boys, who just had to get away (loo and/or sweeties). I always thought that the TF movie wouldn't be short, given items like Spiderman. Still no idea what cert it's going to rate - bet it's not less than a UK 12 judging by some of those scenes in the trailers, unless some of the juicier bits are cut and we only get them on special DVD.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:13 pm

Originally posted by TSFC
Well, the Harry Potter movies are all 2 hours + and kids just stay glued to the screen.

Ahh, but Potter's a bit more bankable - I'd say a bigger chunk of the audience have read the books beforehand.

I'd be surprised at a cinema cut of more than two hours, personally, with a 150+ DVD cut planned already. Ahhh, remember when Director's Cuts were just something done when the studio really ****ed with the film, rather than something planned early on to sell as many DVDs as possible despite Peter Jackson basically being told he could do whatever the Hell he liked with his films... Why not go all the way, and just release the first half of the film to the cinema, and claim the second half will be on the DVD? Arseholes.

Rambling me...

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:11 pm

Originally posted by Cliffjumper
Ahhh, remember when Director's Cuts were just something done when the studio really ****ed with the film, rather than something planned early on to sell as many DVDs as possible despite Peter Jackson basically being told he could do whatever the Hell he liked with his films...

I do believe the longer LotR movies are Extended Cuts, not Director Cuts.

Granted, I like some of the stuff in the Extended Cuts...it's neat to see that with the film, but it would have just been too much for the theaters. Ultimately, although I prefer the longer versions when watching them at home, I do believe that the theatrical releases are better films.

That being said, I'm hoping for somewhere between 2 and 2 and a half hours for this film.

(that is definatley my preferred movie length range...unless it's a comedy....)

tahukanuva · Post by **tahukanuva** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:55 pm

Originally posted by Brimstone
I do believe the longer LotR movies are Extended Cuts, not Director Cuts.

And that affects his point how?

slartibartfast · Post by **slartibartfast** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:17 pm

Shia Labeouf
You can't just have robots fighting for no reason.

SenahBirdR · Post by **SenahBirdR** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:10 am

Extended Cuts are scenes filmed after it was already finished with post production and hitting theatres. Director's Cuts are things already filmed and removed in Post Production/editing. The Extended sequences were being filmed as the Fellowship was just hitting theatres as I recall. Extra stuff that they decided would be cool to have that weren't as important for the theatrical release but had the budget left over after the initial screening to do. Having the Extended Sequences in the Theaterical version would have meant another 6 months to a year on each movie's release.

20 action sets! That is great. Bay claimed 12 huge sets over on his form shootfortheedit.com. So does this mean 12 huge action sets and 8 smaller action sets? 2.5 hours seems fine by me. I prefer the 2+ hour range for movies that are well done. If it takes drawing out to hit that, forget it. If this gives us over an hour and a half of action and still leaves room for solid storytelling then I am all for it.

Jaynz · Post by **Jaynz** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:25 am

Well, you know, 1/2 hour of that is just Micheal Bay crediting himself.

SenahBirdR · Post by **SenahBirdR** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:26 am

Ok, one and a half hours of action, half hour of plot and setting, half hour of Bay self-back slapping. Liveable.

NullVoid · Post by **NullVoid** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:07 pm

This whole thing sounds reasonable since I like long movies! '~' I want to make a film some day and it will have no story! Here is a cut from the script I'm working on:

Squad of good, fights sqaud of bad.

lots of cool stunts like: Jump form window of one building land in other and kill more enemies, or put grenade in desk and kick it cornering bad guys the grenade blows up. OR jump onto rope on helecopter thats letting enemys down and blow helecopter up jump off and land in window of building kicking enemy.

That would be cool... Alrigh'

Anyways so yeah, I think the TFTM sounds a nice length giving by that. I will DEFINETLY see it! ( BUT I made that desision long ago)

I think they should have a double show thing where we see the '07 movie then the '86 one. That would be cool (As I never had a chance to see the old one in theatres!)

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:48 pm

Originally posted by tahukanuva
And that affects his point how?

It's not just semantics (at least not in this case). A Director's Cut is supposed to be a version of the film that the director believes is the definative version...the one the "studio" wouldn't let him make for one reason or another.

An Extended Cut, at least in this instance, was more like a bonus for the fans. Here's some stuff that really didn't need to be in the movie...but it's cool anyway and some of you fans out there will love it.

CounterPunch · Post by **CounterPunch** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:49 pm

Originally posted by Brimstone
It's not just semantics (at least not in this case). A Director's Cut is supposed to be a version of the film that the director believes is the definative version...the one the "studio" wouldn't let him make for one reason or another.

An Extended Cut, at least in this instance, was more like a bonus for the fans. Here's some stuff that really didn't need to be in the movie...but it's cool anyway and some of you fans out there will love it.

One example of the new Directors Cut of Payback.

The director filmed the film and the studio execs didnt like it so they got his 2nd director in (from what i can remember) and he refilmed 30% of the film, with different stuff, new bad guy etc.

Now there are new studio execs and theyve given the original director the chance to go back and edit HIS film, and its being released.

I find thats a good example of a directors cut.

Tetsuro · Post by **Tetsuro** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:52 pm

Originally posted by CounterPunch
One example of the new Directors Cut of Payback.

The director filmed the film and the studio execs didnt like it so they got his 2nd director in (from what i can remember) and he refilmed 30% of the film, with different stuff, new bad guy etc.

Now there are new studio execs and theyve given the original director the chance to go back and edit HIS film, and its being released.

I find thats a good example of a directors cut.

I think there are a lot of worthwhile director's cuts. Aliens for example.

Oh, and don't forget Superman II, which is virtually an entirely different movie as the "Richard Donner cut".