|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
Exactly how much longer than 90 mins
At 1:47:45 PM on 6/9/2001, Gus Hammond said:
Johnston was definetely talking about "Pearl Harbor". But it could also be "Titanic" or "Lawrence of Arabia".
At 11:12:32 PM on 6/8/2001, calum said:
Just over 90 mins my ass Im in australia and have to wait till august 30th to see JP3 not like lucky America which only has to wait to July 18th.Im not going to wait a whole extra month to see a movie just over 90 mins . It better be at least 120mins with non stop action.
At 2:23:23 AM on 6/8/2001, Utahraptor said:
After nearly 4 days, I'd bet it would hurt.
At 11:38:15 PM on 6/7/2001, velocirapteryx said:
my ass would hurt like hell if it was 90 HOURS.
At 11:26:17 PM on 6/7/2001, mxpx8690 said:
90 HOURS would be interesting...........
At 11:20:31 PM on 6/7/2001, velocirapteryx said:
i'm glad it's over 90 minutes, because usually 90 minute movies go by pretty damn fast.
At 9:49:29 PM on 6/7/2001, Mattman said:
If I remember correctly, Joe sent Dan a letter responding to Bill Macy's comments, and they've been in touch since then.
At 9:44:50 PM on 6/7/2001, Dr John said:
umm exuse me dan but how the hek do you get in tuch with Joe i mean how the hell do you do it man
At 9:16:26 PM on 6/7/2001, Anthony said:
The last two movies have been a little over 2 hours, why would they decide suddenly to make one a meager 90 minutes...that'd be absurd. Plus, why is the discussion focused on Micheal Bay and Pearl Harbor. This is a JP III page.
At 9:00:21 PM on 6/7/2001, Cheetah167 said:
I just had this weird overwhelming urge to read the novels! Whoa, I am so psyched to see this movie! Bring it on!!!!! YAAHHHHHHHH!
"Clever girl!!!"
-Mr. O aka Scott
At 7:44:01 PM on 6/7/2001, Mattman said:
Any movie goer who didn't read the books has no business complaining about the running time or critiquing Jurassic Park movies in the first place. 90 minutes is for comedies, not adventure films I'm afraid.
At 7:23:31 PM on 6/7/2001, Cheetah167 said:
I hope this movie tops 130 minutes...my perfect time in a theatre comes close to <i>Hannibal</i>'s 131 minutes or <i>Gladiators</i>'s 155 minutes. I love being in the theatre long but not too long.
About Skywalker Ranch, it is actually a ranch! In a valley in the middle of a plain! It rocks!
About <i>Pearl Harbor</i>, the attack scene was brilliant and I hope to see other films do those awesome effects and cool sounds...but it was so melodramatic, I was rolling my eyes at that Evelyn character and when Mr. Baldwin started his cliches.
About Michael Bay, his movies are load of melodramaticism and predictability that I hate what he does. By the way, Mr. Cage sucks!
Don't worry peeps! We are fans! Aren't you forgetting? No matter the length, you are still gonna go, right?
"Clever girl..."
-Mr. O aka Scott
At 7:01:19 PM on 6/7/2001, Sinorsis said:
I think the over 90 minute thing could've helped a lot with JP and TLW...especially for those movie-goers that didn't bother reading the books.
At 6:58:53 PM on 6/7/2001, JohnHammond said:
I'm sorry, aren't we forgetting the real matter?? Jurassic Park has been confirmed longer than 90 minutes, that is a good thing. Let's debate what time has done for the JP movies, huh.........
At 6:43:57 PM on 6/7/2001, Sinorsis said:
First off, I think we are entitled to our opinions.
Secondly, although the movie did seem totally real and whatever, it was because of the special effects.
The real negative thing about this all is that a war was used as an excuse to rack up money. As a history lesson...it was eh. If they really wanted to make it a history lesson, it wouldn't have been the way it was. I've seen a lot of low-budget movies regarding war that did a better job at teaching the lesson than this movie did. If this movie were to teach the true meaning of war, you wouldn't have walked out of that movie ready to kick ass and recite the pledge of allegiance. I can't believe people were actually clapping during the last few scenes...it disgusted me to see such contentment at the expense of other people's lives.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, there's absolutely NOTHING glorifying about war.
~One love.
At 6:33:22 PM on 6/7/2001, Jurassiclaw said:
The problem with Pearl Harbor and Titanic is that they got that fuckin' love story ... Why ? The hell why ? When I saw Titanic, it was boring for an hour and a half, then it became good halfway through it. I am pretty damn sure if Cameron had made Caracter and plot developpement for the first 45 it woulda been awsome, but he did'nt. The movie would of lasted 2h15 or 2h30. And that's perfect. They should just keep it to the historical movie. Peal Harbor was even worst, and it had, additionned to that, the most-obvious-of-all glitches. But look at theses kind og movies, the action sequences are toatally awsome, but they had to introduce crap into the movie just to make it longer. Ugh ! On my opinion, the best-ever made War movie (I have seen) is Private Ryan.
I mean, Speilberg put in alot of action with a very very good plot and historic thing.
But look at both directors, they're good, Cameron brough us Aliens, Terminator And Bay, remember the Rock ? Awsome movie ! :)
At 5:59:54 PM on 6/7/2001, pachysaur said:
In order for something to be cliche, it has to be done before, and if you have seen any movie before 1960 you'd see that all the the special effects and cinematography were all current day true,but the story and plot were directly modeled after so many films of the 1940's. So it was at least a tribute to the 1940's style.
You guys, you need to understand where i'm coming from. I agree, the plot is at some points long, the dialogue was cheesy, the situations were somewhat unbelievable and there were cliche'd moments, but you have to realize the importants of these features. The one thing I didn't like about titanic was that I felt many of the characters were very modern and I felt I wasn't feeling the times. Pearl Harbor did this for me. My grandmother, an 80 year old ex- rosie the riveter, after having seen this film, felt it was the best ever made because she felt like she was transported back to the times she hadexperienced first hand. The situations were real because they were, like the 1940's, light and "unreal". Understand how this films was made. I agree with your points, but this film is from another generation. The greatest generation. Try and understand that. I respect other opinions, but I hate to see a good thing gone to waste and misunderstood. Give it another chance and realize how america has changed. It's a history lesson worth learning.
At 5:49:58 PM on 6/7/2001, kiyone said:
I hate to get all PC on you, david.c but "Jap" is an ethnic slur. I know, I've heard it all my life.
At 5:40:28 PM on 6/7/2001, DrewSugar said:
"pachysaur said:
True 15 - 20 minutes could've been concidered to be shaved"
15-20 minutes? How about the first 45 minutes and the last 45 minutes.
The movie was a disgrace to the men and women who were at that event.
Michael Bay tried to make an epic, but it didn't work. The movie was filled with cliche dialogue and corny speeches. It was a wanna-be Titanic. Not even close to other war movies such as Saving Private Ryan.
Pearl Harbor was a pure money-making machine from the start. It is HARDLY a tribute to those who died at Pearl Harbor.
For those who haven't seen it: Go into the movie 70-80 minutes after it starts, watch the 45-minute attack sequence and the nurse/hospital sequence, then leave right before Alec Baldwin comes on the screen.
DS
(ok, back to Jurassic Park 3)
At 5:39:12 PM on 6/7/2001, david.c said:
Pachy, everyone has their own opinion, two people can disagree even if their interpretation of the film is the same. Pearl Harboris funny, pretty and well acted, but great cinematography and effects, with a good beginning can't make up for predictable, poorly structured, horribly cliched with even tacked on cliches (Cuba's American dream... ) plot. It's also dull at times, and yes I do listen to dialogue. It was okay now... even moving in one scene. It was just made as a Titanic sequel with a better script ( but not great) better acting, but none of the structural savvy or interest and LACK of boredom. Titanic was rather banal and melodramatic, but great to watch. Pearl Harbor simply isn't. At least Titanic put the empathy back into peoples deaths and didn't suck up to the Japs. Oh, wiat... this is a JP3 message board. Hmmm... JP3 will rock. 90+ minutes is fine. Just don't make it less. 120 sounds perfect; but hey...
At 5:20:44 PM on 6/7/2001, pachysaur said:
I'm sorry all of your have unfortunately jumped on the popular bandwagon called "Pearl Harbor Sucked". That's truly unfortunate. True 15 - 20 minutes could've been concidered to be shaved off, but it really wasn't that bad or long. But, wait, I must stop and realize that my recent work on a WW2 play and my research to the times have given me an advantage. Though i wasn't alive during those times (like most of us), I was able to discover that we lived in a different place. Most americans had country pride and ultra cheesyness when concidering their loved ones and their lives. They only knew of success in war and didn't see its' brutal consequences. They were more than willing to fight and didn't know what to expect. Pearl harbor turned alot of this around whcih is why it was the time of innocense. We know longer have that innocense and laugh at the "childish dialoque and immature interaction". I apologize for you ahead of time. Try and enjoy this mmovie for what it is. Michael Bay put alot of work into it and no one who contributed would have let it be a piece of crap. They respected their elders too much.
At 3:34:23 PM on 6/7/2001, JoseRZ said:
Rich $10 a ticket. It only cost 3.25 during the day for a ticket here. Just as long as the movie is good it dose not matter how long it is.
At 3:26:20 PM on 6/7/2001, VRaptor6760 said:
how bout we leave joe alone
At 3:22:24 PM on 6/7/2001, kiyone said:
Hey Dan! Ask Joe how much could a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood! ;P
At 2:34:19 PM on 6/7/2001, Evilgrinch said:
Yeah, some long movies sure are crap.
Pearl Harbour anyone?
-Evilgrinch
<font color=Red>
To have an opinion is what makes us human</font>.
At 2:26:45 PM on 6/7/2001, Jp3me said:
Whether it is 90 minutes or 60 minutes or 200 minutes it will still be a kick ass movie, and I am still going to drive all the way from Wisconsin to Bozeman, Montanta to see the premiere of it!
At 2:21:39 PM on 6/7/2001, Jurassiclaw said:
He said DEFENITIVELY OVER 90 minutes.
He have proof . HERE :
They said there was 140 of footage.
Kenedy said there was more CGI shots than both first movies together
The script suggest around 150 minutes.
I guess it,s betwen 120 and 140
At 1:55:56 PM on 6/7/2001, Unknown said:
He said it is not 90 minutes... what if it was 81 minutes...
Also, the early rumours were for 95, not 90 min.
At 1:22:46 PM on 6/7/2001, Cheetah167 said:
<i>Gladiator</i> was 2 hours 35 minutes. Sorry.
Rock on Joe! I feel ripped off in 90 minute movies. You see everything in the commercial. Don Davis rocks by the way. <i>The Matrix</i>'s music was incredible!
Hey, do you realize his next project is <i>The Matrix: Reloaded</i>? Thanks Joe!!
I find it awesome that Joe badmouthed that "unadulterated crap" <i>Pearl Harbor</i>. Rock on Mr. D and Mr. J.
"Clever girl..."
-Mr. O aka Scott
At 1:19:23 PM on 6/7/2001, Mattman said:
I'll put my money on 100 minutes (not including credits).
At 12:11:08 PM on 6/7/2001, VespertineDino said:
I would also REALLy like to know about thee music heard in the trailer. I think it's a perfectly logical, germane question.
At 11:47:38 AM on 6/7/2001, TheHatchling said:
I see this as the start of a long line of 'I told you so's coming from me! ;)
At 11:33:47 AM on 6/7/2001, six_foot_turkey said:
Guys, he said it was more than 90 minutes so shutup!!! Geez.
At 11:04:52 AM on 6/7/2001, Tala said:
I guess a 90 minute movie would be fine. Many movies are 90 minutes but I seem to enjoy longer movies. I feel that a 90 minute movie would be full of more action and less romance and sympathetic parts. The only downside to a 90 minute movie is that the characters may not be as well developed as they seem, and that, well, it's short. I think the movie would be great even if it is shorter than many movies now a days.
At 11:02:34 AM on 6/7/2001, Playing God said:
Dan can you please ask joe if pterandons really have teeth. I know there are maquettes(sp) of them with teeth but the poster and the trading card there isn't any teeth or none that are noticable. So please ask joe so we can put that to rest too, Thanks
At 11:00:01 AM on 6/7/2001, Dan said:
I'm not asking Joe any more dumb questions! He's a busy guy, I already feel stupid enough for asking him how long the damn thing is going to be..
-Dan
At 10:10:39 AM on 6/7/2001, Jmac1686 said:
Hey guys, i'd like to post some insight on the JP3 trailer music...it isn't Don Davis's score. It is just action music that is used in movie trailers. I realized this when I was watching a preview on TV for the Star Trek Voyager Re-runs this summer and it had the same music from the JP3 trailer! This also is the case where the music from Mummy Returns trailer is the Final Fantasy Trailer.
At 8:37:17 AM on 6/7/2001, Jurassiclaw said:
See, guys ? I knew it. Everything is okay, now.
EEVVEEEERRRRRYYTHIIIINGGG !!!
At 6:38:32 AM on 6/7/2001, SuchomimusInJP3 said:
Dan.
For the LOVE of GOD.
Ask Joe if the beat-driven music featured in the JP/// trailer during the action sequences is Don Davis' score for the film. PLEASE.
At 6:28:58 AM on 6/7/2001, grechy said:
well firstly we shouldnt even take into acccount the FAKE plats that people are posting!!
like seriously there is many mnay things that will be in the movie that we will never imagine!!!
I reakon JP3 will be fairly long but not as long as Pearl Harbour!
CHEERS!!
At 4:14:42 AM on 6/7/2001, m2k said:
There is nothing wrong with pearl harbour and will probably take more than JP3 as it appeals to a wider audience.
But a film cn be as long as it needs to be films like toy story, shrek etc arn't rubish because they are short.
At 2:53:54 AM on 6/7/2001, Mattman said:
Long movies can be good, as long as they aren't long simply because the director feels length equals quality, like Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay obviously thought "Braveheart is three hours, Dances with Wolves is three hours, Gladiator is three hours... my movie won't be great unless it's three hours!" A movie should be exactly as long as it needs to be and no more. Btw, Moulin Rouge rules. Out.
At 2:23:51 AM on 6/7/2001, Sinorsis said:
awesome, i was reading the fake plot summary, and yeah, it seemed kinda hard to fit in all that stuff (which most of is verified to be in there) within 90 min. Hehe, i wonder what 3 hour+ movie Joe was talking about? ;-) (grin)
Good deal
At 2:19:59 AM on 6/7/2001, MacMatt said:
"coming soon" rollovers Suck!
At 2:18:32 AM on 6/7/2001, Rich said:
i feel kinda ripped off spending $10 for a 90 minute movie... i think 120 is the minimum that a movie should go for... if a movie is only 90 minutes there is no character development, it just tacky... the extra time allows you to work more inte things into scripts... btw dan next time your chattin to Joe, ask him when the official website is planning to be updated... im sick of the "coming soon" rollovers :)
At 2:11:42 AM on 6/7/2001, MacMatt said:
I Guess Thats Fair, Long movies tend to be Crap!
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
