comment #1

le corbeau says ...

Even Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines only runs 138 minutes. Yeesh.

comment #2

actionman says ...

as long as I'm enjoying myself I don't care how long a movie is. I wanted Children of Men to be longer, wished there'd been another 30 minutes in Syriana, could've watched another battle scene in 300, never thought about Dead Man's Chest being too long, would've LOVED more time with Zodiac and The Good Shepherd. If I am enjoying myself in the theater, time just flies by. If I'm not, like when I saw the embarrassment that is Grindhouse, I want to leave early (I stayed hoping it would get better...it didn't.) In terms of At World's End, as long as it delivers the set-pieces and excitement and flawless CGI that I've come to expect (and demand) from Bruckheimer and Comapny, I'll be pleased.

comment #3

tholl-yung says ...

Just a curious techie question, why did it take longer than the running time of POTC: ATW for Jeffrey's post to appear HEre?

comment #4

jeffmcm says ...

You liked Syriana more than Grindhouse? You constantly surprise me, Actionman.

Anyway, let's not blame Verbinsky exclusively. Bruckheimer is known for his share of bloated spectacles from Tony Scott and Michael Bay.

comment #5

EOTW says ...

Wow, you convulsed over some POS running time? I convulsed when i found out that 32 people got shot today at the school I go to. I guess it's all the same, you fucking cunt.

comment #6

drgogol says ...

"I think it's fair to start trashing this puppy sight unseen"

No, it's not.

"I guess it's all the same, you %^(#$^ !@#$(*#"

No it's not.

comment #7

York "Budd" Durden says ...

We're all sickened by the tragedy at VT. But sheesh EOTW, this is a movie blog, after all, and JW "convulsing" over something as seemingly insignificant as a bloated running time is part of his schtick.

Pull yourself together. You dishonor the dead with your petty jibe at an innocent bystander.

comment #8

sandekat says ...

EOTW: if you do indeed go to Virginia Tech I mourn for your school. But also you should be at a firelight vigil instead of reading silly movie blogs and lashing out with obscenities.

The first cut may be 170 minutes long but I suspect Verbenski is trimming, trimming, trimming (unfortuanately for me and my unabashed admiration for these terrific films.)

I'd be interested in learning why Wells calls Verbenski arrogant. He seems like a lovely human being.

THe real reason for the length is the writers: they prided themselves in creating a very complicated story that weaves the individual characters into a dense tapestry and gives many of them story arcs, all the while upping the ante in spectacle.

I love long movies, but I chose my theatre with care. Its the Alamo all the way.....great seats, plenty of leg room, tasty grog and seabiscuits. Just wonderful. I'm looking forward to a enjoyable spring and summer and ....etc. etc of movie going.

comment #9

transmogrifier says ...

So people get shot, and thus all conversation not directly related to the tragedy requires over-the-top indignation?

EOTW, you're an idiot. Sorry. Most people are able to be both sympathetic and continue living. Sorry if we offend your delicate sensibilities, the same sensibilites that sees you mourn at a movie blog.

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

There's no reason to call EOTW names when, if what he says is correct, he's had a rather stressful day.

Sandekat, I agree that the writers of the POTC sequels were trying to write a 'dense tapestry' but I think I would disagree as to the level of their success...structurally, Pirates 2 was painfully convoluted.

comment #11

transmogrifier says ...

To tell the truth, I didn't see the "I go to" part. I take it back, but I still think it's more than a little "look at me" to be attacking people for not treating the tragedy as the end of the world. It is what it is, a senseless, horrific tragedy, but abusing people who talk about something (anything) else is a really, really dumb thing to do.

comment #12

rocco says ...

THIS IS NOT A MOVIE BLOG. STOP SAYING THAT. This hasn't been a "movie" blog for quite some time. When Jeff rants about politics, polar bears, or dances on dead director's graves it's "his blog and y'all are just haters". When anyone criticizes him for ducking his head in the sand it's "a movie blog"....fuck that.

I've been travelling all day in one helluva fucking clusterfuck of air travel...checked Jeff before leaving at noon...coming back now in bleached microbe-ridden hotel room at 10...SHOCKED, SHOCKED there is not a reaction. Maybe it's too personal, what with his son in university himself...what do i know...maybe's he torn over how to spin his genuine gut reaction in some digestible way...

I could get nasty...based on his track record I could suggest he's battling over something like "Awful, terrible news! Today is a shocking, humbling, horrific event...these kids had their entire futures in front of them...some of them may have actually gone on to contribute to the betterment of mankind, but let's be honest, most of them were going to wind up white-collar pions working 9 to 5 for big bad pharmaceutical or oil companies with their comforting 401K's and health plans directly contributing to animal torture, global warming, and human genocide...Tragic, terrible news, but it is what it is"...I could be a facetious, travel-weary, bitter fuck and suggest that, but I wont...

comment #13

Heli0tr0pe says ...

Jeez, as if Jeff doesn't take enough abuse from his own readers, now he gets called a "fucking cunt" for having the gall not to intuit that you, EOTW, went to the same school where a massacre happened today?

Man, things are getting oogy around here...

comment #14

Weinberg says ...

Yep, damn us "pure entertainment" fans.

comment #15

Noah says ...

Everyone needs to chill out. You could argue that this is not a movie blog, Delbomber, but this is a thread about a movie. If this were a thread about the shooting today, then any vitriol and outrage thrown Jeff's way would be perfectly understandable.

This is, ostensibly, a blog about movies first and foremost and I come here to read about movies and converse with you folks about what dumb thing Jeff said or movies or politics. I think Jeff is staying out of this one because what can he really add? Or maybe he just doesn't want to start the kind of conversation that has been started in this thread. It was a senseless, horrible tragedy but we're talking about Pirates of the Carribbean here and I don't see how that relates.

EOTW, I'm terribly sorry about what happened at your school.

Pirates of the Carribbean no. 3 is gonna suck.

comment #16

rocco says ...

I don't want Jeff to comment on the shooting so I can lash out at him...I want him to comment on the tragedy because he has an opinion on every single fart and hickup of pop-culture and American society at large, and this is a glaring, conspicuous silence. To sit and contemplate is completely out of character...I continue to read Jeff because his commentary is usually off the cuff and NOT redacted and reconsidered like most other bloggers. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, but let's hear it...

comment #17

Heli0tr0pe says ...

Well here's my $0.02 - the first sentence of an editorial by Paul Thompson in the London Daily Mail: "Despite repeated school shootings, it is still ridiculously easy to obtain a gun in the U.S."

Seems a simple enough statement of fact to me - except that there are about 50 million right-wing morons out there who would dispute it, for one idiotic reason or another.

Wanna lash out at me now?

comment #18

Jay says ...

I feel like cutting Gore Verbinski some slack, since I adored The Weather Man. maybe it was the script, maybe it was the acting, maybe it was because there were no pirates. I just hope he makes a ton of cash off of these and gets on to making some other great films to put along side Weather Man.

comment #19

sandekat says ...

"....structurally, Pirates 2 was painfully convoluted."

jeffmcm, I agree with the entire statement above except 'painfully'. Because, if you paid attention, it all made perfect sense except for the parts that fit with a revelation in Part 3.....hey! What a concept! Deferred gratification, unanswered questions, dangling participles...

....anyway, because the writers are so damn proud of their Swiss watch of a story, I believe its all going to come together in the end....the end of the Age of Piracy and the end of the individual arcs.

Noah, you're absolutely correct...POTC 3 WILL suck....for you. Its like magic....if you will that you'll hate a movie and that its fun is shallow, its frolic pointless, its spectacle hallow....then that is exactly what it will be.....you'll be like a seer, seeing your own future 'reaction'. Wow, good for you....they won't be pulling any wool over your eyes, no siree!

comment #20

Noah says ...

Okay, I was really just trying to shift the conversation back to movies.

I don't know if it will suck or not, but if it's anything like the last one I probably won't dig it. The first one was a supreme entertainment that had me smiling the whole way through. The last one was boring and completely devoid of magic. I agree with Jeff that it was way too long because I wanted it to end. I think the first one was perfectly paced because I didn't want it to end. I feel like this one will be more like the second one, so I think it will suck. But, who knows, maybe I'll dig it. But thanks for comparing the Pirates movies to "magic", that was hilarious.

comment #21

Nate West says ...

People at Disney tell me that the edited footage of POTC 3 does indeed run 170 minutes but since they will be showing the movie in split-screen the actual running time will be only 85 minutes.

comment #22

rocco says ...

Noah, that's fair...but it's kind of like going to a Yankees game when Mariano Rivera doesn't come in to pitch...

comment #23

tholl-yung says ...

I'm calling in a bomb threat HEre. Why? We may never know. What can anyone really say?

comment #24

cobhome says ...

I loved Pirates - both of em - they are fun - exciting ( if you can alow yourself to be drawn into that imaginary world) Depp is pure pleasure - Rush and Night are such great villains - Keira is a little thin - Bloom makes me think of Errol Flynn - ok - I was a little bored at the neginning of Pirates 2 - but - once they got the plot elements together and the story started tomove - it was great - I am not surpirsed by the running length of Pirates 3 - they have all these plot ends to put together - my big question is - who does Elizabeth end up with - Jack or the noble but somewhat dull Will??

comment #25

cobhome says ...

I loved Pirates - both of em - they are fun - exciting ( if you can allow yourself to be drawn into that imaginary world) Depp is pure pleasure - Rush and Nighy are such great villains - Keira is a little thin - Bloom makes me think of Errol Flynn - ok - I was a little bored at the beginning of Pirates 2 - but - once they got the plot elements together and the story started to move - it was great - I am not surpirsed by the running length of Pirates 3 - they have all these plot ends to put together - my big question is - who does Elizabeth end up with - Jack or the noble but somewhat dull Will??

comment #26

rocco says ...

Colt 45...works every time, eh Holly?

comment #27

Smurf says ...

Why were Stu Beattie and Jay Wolpert not involved in writing the sequels? Has anybody read their drafts of Part 1?

They helped the early Pirates seem much tighter and leaner, whereas without them Part 2 was fat and lazily incoherent gibberish (one can only hope Part 3 will not wind up another Matrix finale, but 170 runtime has me fearing another King Kong watch-glancing buttache)...

looking over Ted & Terry's careers, their best movies always result when doctoring other writers' earlier drafts, while their weakest writing is whenever they handle the entire enchilada.

comment #28

iamjoe says ...

You know, if the movie engages me in any different way, I'm all for it being as long as possible. I loved MAGNOLIA and SYRIANA, not noticing the length of time. JFK kept me there in all its Oliver Stone swooping theory. I wanted MORE infomation from the 3+hours of the documentry THE CORPORATION. The length doesn't matter to me as a film watcher as long as the storyteller does their job.

comment #29

sandekat says ...

Noah, Noah, Noah.....you're a smart guy but, like almost everyone on the web you scan, you don't read.

The only 'hilarious' thing about Magic was that I used it to describe your ability to accurately predict your response to a movie, even before seeing it . I wasn't actually referring to POTC3 ( I don't know if it will have much magic to it....I haven't seen it yet....I'm hopeful, but I'll wait and see). But I suppose any laugh is a good laugh.

Smurf, you may be right about the writers. The way they worked on the scripts for these two was unique and they put a lot of thought into them.....perhaps too much. They remind of those sorta smart kids who think they're way smarter than they turn out to be.....however, Beattie and Wolpert's efforts on the first movie were rather cliched and flat. So I wouldn't pump up their contribution too much. The key to the first script was tjat none of the writers thought the film would ever get made, let alone lead to sequels. Being the middle of the story is always a tough gig.

comment #30

Wrecktum says ...

Jeffrey Wells doesn't know one or two distribution execs at Disney, let alone four or five.

17 minutes of eye-popping Pirate excitement? Count me in.

comment #31

tholl-yung says ...

I'm more uptown than that delbomber, I don't wear fruit of the loom and I'm not a stuffed shirt Depp does Disney's devil work. Time moves very slowly for children, don't tell Jerry. I really like the cell phone camera man.

comment #32

Wrecktum says ...

My zero's stuck.

comment #33

tholl-yung says ...

I do sound drunk, don't I? Just trying to say, an aging hipster is better than an aging stuffed shirt. I wish POTC ATW gets longer and children beg not to go. The cell phone camera man was brave, that shit's scary.

comment #34

vulgar71 says ...

I believe this is where Roger Ebert would say, "No good film is too long and no bad film is short enough." And this movie really could fall into either catagory. (My assumption is it will be in the latter.)

comment #35

insidah says ...

personally, i think the extension of the pirates film into a franchise was an artistically bankrupt move, no matter how pretty or dazzling the sequels may be. if anything, the sequels did not need to continue the boring stories of Bloom and Knightley and their lame romance. also, captain jack changed during the first film - the sequel tries to convince us the character arc never happened - kind of like what happened when Elle Woods appeared at the start of Legally Blonde 2 as if she'd NEVER gone through the arc of the first one. Whatever, dumb Americans eat this shit up - but I'd love to see this third part fail - on some level. Kind of the way I felt walking out of Matrix 2 - I told everyone around me it was awful and no one would admit it. Years later, I feel vindicated. I felt the same way walking out of Dead Man's Chest - what a piece of shit. Completely terrible film.

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

T. Holly, you _always_ sound drunk.

Insidah, "the extension of the pirates film into a franchise was an artistically bankrupt move"

Like it was some small indie movie that sold out its ideals? Huh?

comment #37

Dublin101 says ...

I'm with Wells on this on. 3 hrs sounds like fucking torture. The first film was a fun romp that should have had 40mins slashed and the sequel was a dud that occasionally displayed some diverting physical slapstick. But Depp was merely gurning through the motions in the first sequel and the finale should be more of the same. Jeff; I know how much you hate these things and you have my sympathies. Personally the only place I’ll watch this film is on a long haul flight.

And credit to Wells for acknowledging that Verbinski has a good eye. All he needs is an editor and producer to rein him in. One of the(many) problems with Hollywood Blockbusters is the inability to deliver a tight cut. I guess you can blame Lord of the Potters for demonstrating that an arse numbing run time equals boffo box office.

Any chance of Verbinski making two sequels to Mousehunt?

comment #38

Rob says ...

There is no surer sign of the death of cinema than a four-minute theme-park ride being adapted into an eight-hour saga.

comment #39

tholl-yung says ...

That's because I'm smart, mcm -- I'll bet you don't even know the cell phone camera man's name or his descent. It's: Jamal Albarghouti, Palestinian descent.

There's no such thing as tightening a 170 minute movie. If it's at its best at 170 minutes, i.e., it's working, cutting scenes and sequences will make it worse. If it's 170 minutes and not working, and you lift every scene and sequence or storyline that doesn't push the movie forward, and then tighten, or finese, what's left, you don't necessarily have a good or even better movie.

comment #40

le corbeau says ...

T. Holly, do you really believe, based on the evidence of the first two, that the third POTC is as tight as it can be? As someone who'd had enough of the trilogy before the first one was over... I could believe there's a reasonably entertaining 120-minute movie in there, but a hopelessly convoluted 170-minute one, full of plot details we don't need and long scenes involving characters who were never that interesting to begin with (which would be every one except Depp and the villains).

comment #41

Chris Willman says ...

170 minutes is the new black.

comment #42

tholl-yung says ...

I'm just giving you the blueprint how you lose 50 minutes, you're just running with the bulls.

comment #43

Thrudvangar says ...

Great idea, Nate.

Grindhouse would've been great as a split-screen film. Kill Bill too.

comment #44

Overstreet says ...

Isn't it ironic that Wells spends as much time (or more) complaining about the time he's lost watching lengthy action movies as he does actually watching them?

Kind of a glutton for punishment, eh?

comment #45

le corbeau says ...

"And credit to Wells for acknowledging that Verbinski has a good eye."

Verbinski is to the Coens as Ridley Scott is to Kubrick-- the eye but not the writing mind.