'Terminator 3' Running Time

[James Harvey]

According to Dark Horizons, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines will have a final runtime of 109 minutes - almost half an hour shorter than Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

 

[TimTwoFace]

Argh, I hate it when superbly over-hyped non-comedy movies don't even hit the two hour mark. It had better be a good movie! *SHAKES FIST IN VAIN AT ARNIE*

-Tim

 

[Rune]

Blech ... don't tell me - they're saving the best bits for a director's cut.

I suppose we shouldn't start ranting till we see the goods but all the same ... *left eye twitches*

 

[Simpler Simon]

109mins feels exceptionally short - you're not supposed to judge a movie by its runtime, but a lot of times this is a sign of bad editing and entire subplots being cut out. I hope that isn't the case.

I think the extended T2 (which i think became Cameron's prefered version) ran almost 2hrs 30min? And how long did the original run? I'm sure it had a similiar runtime to T3.

 

[Lonestarr]

Too short?! If anything, it may be too long. Honestly, 109 minutes is a good running time. After all, the original ran 108 minutes.

 

[The Clown Prince]

Ahhhhhhh! The last movie I was super hyped to see that ended up with a short running time was Jurassic Park 3, and crap I was really disapointed with that movie.

Ah, man, this better be good. However I feel that like JP3, it's gonna be all action from begining to end. No time to slow down. And that can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how you look at it. And with a short running time, they've shown a lot in the 4 trailers that have been released. Hope it's not spoiled now. However, Lonestar does have a point. The original did have the same running time, and it was good. But it was the original that started it all. This is a big time sequel. We'll soon see.

The Clown Prince

 

[James Harvey]

The 109 minute runtime does have me a bit worried. While the first one was 108, it wasn't the big summer movie that T3 is supposed to be. I just have a bad feeling about this short time, the same feeling I got when I hard about JP3's 93 minute runtime.

 

[Silent Bob]

I realize the original was 108 minutes, but this sequel should be at least 2 hours. The trailers give it an epic feel, that it'll be a huge movie, and it can't do that in 109 minutes. Leave it to WB to ruin the Terminator franchise.

 

[M'ral]

109 minutes? What can you do in 109 minutes? *shakes head sadly* I guess we'll see.

 

[Terminatah]

109 minutes? What can you do in 109 minutes? *shakes head sadly* I guess we'll see.

Why don't you time travel back to 1984 and ask Jim Cameron what you can do in 109 minutes?

I realize the original was 108 minutes, but this sequel should be at least 2 hours. The trailers give it an epic feel, that it'll be a huge movie, and it can't do that in 109 minutes. Leave it to WB to ruin the Terminator franchise.

Is this a joke? Because this reads like some great satire. I don't know what to say to threads like these.

-Terminatah

 

[Baltofan]

T3

I thought that T3 would be over two hour long, but it's 109 minutes long, was there some cut scenes included?
Many movies today is nearly 2 hours and 30 minutes long like the two Harry Potter movies and X Men 2

 

[EinBebop]

11 minutes. People are fussing over 11 minutes.

 

[The Game]

A movie's runtime doesn't mean anything guys.

-The Game

 

[Simpler Simon]

Let's say this movie was originally budgeted to run at least 2hrs, which isn't an unfair assumption, since it's a high-profile summer blockbuster.

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, the decision is made to trim the movie down.

What gets cut? Not the action scenes, which took months of preparation, sweat, and (literally) blood to film, and which probably makes up at least half the films budget.

No, its the quiet dialogue scenes that get axed. The character-building scenes. Maybe even an explanation of why judgement day is still going to happen, despite the events of T2.

The Terminator series works because there's as much story and characterization as their is action. If not, its no different than any other action-packed popcorn film.

 

[Terminatah]

Let's say this movie was originally budgeted to run at least 2hrs, which isn't an unfair assumption, since it's a high-profile summer blockbuster.

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, the decision is made to trim the movie down.

What gets cut? Not the action scenes, which took months of preparation, sweat, and (literally) blood to film, and which probably makes up at least half the films budget.

No, its the quiet dialogue scenes that get axed. The character-building scenes. Maybe even an explanation of why judgement day is still going to happen, despite the events of T2.

The Terminator series works because there's as much story and characterization as their is action. If not, its no different than any other action-packed popcorn film.

Do you understand how ridiculous this level of conjecture is? Before the Internet, when cavemen wanted to see a movie, they just looked in the newspaper, saw what was out, picked a film, and saw it. And because they didn't have an assload of unfounded presumptions from the Internet floating around in their heads, they were able to enjoy their movies infinitely more than people today. That's just one of the reasons why cavemen were so much smarter than us.

At this point I'd like to question the relevance of a thread devoted entirely to the runtime of a movie that won't be out for months. You should know better, Jim Harvey. People are animals.

-Terminatah

 

[EinBebop]

Let's say this movie was originally budgeted to run at least 2hrs, which isn't an unfair assumption, since it's a high-profile summer blockbuster.

Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, the decision is made to trim the movie down.

And how many movies need to be trimmed down that don't? Would some please send Steven Spielberg a letter and tell him that noone will think less of him if a movie clocks in under two hours?

I'm starting to feel that directors who consistently run two hours++ are BAD directors. They're people who like all of their little pet scenes so much that they cannot recognize that they contribute only minimally to the movie and fail to see that they slow down the pace of the movie as a whole. The now-infamous temple dance from Matrix: Reloaded jumps immediately to mind.

A director's goal, IMO, should be to bring in the movie over 90 minutes and under two hours. I can appreciate a movie that had so much good footage at the end that it's just not possible. But I've seen far too many movies lately running over two hours that just didn't deserve to.

 

[The Clown Prince]

At this point I'd like to question the relevance of a thread devoted entirely to the runtime of a movie that won't be out for months. You should know better, Jim Harvey. People are animals.

Because, people just like to know the running time of movies. Don't ask me why, people just do. I know I do. I like the fact that I know ahead of time that Hulk is gonna be more than 2 hours. I prepared myself after JP3's running time became known, and sure enough, the short running time was a big factor in killing that movie.

X2 was a better film because it was longer than the first. Being over 2 hours helped it big time allowing more screen time for plot and character developement.

With T3, as hyped as I am, I'm just preparing myself is all now.

The Clown Prince

 

[Terminatah]

And how many movies need to be trimmed down that don't? Would some please send Steven Spielberg a letter and tell him that noone will think less of him if a movie clocks in under two hours?

I'm starting to feel that directors who consistently run two hours++ are BAD directors. They're people who like all of their little pet scenes so much that they cannot recognize that they contribute only minimally to the movie and fail to see that they slow down the pace of the movie as a whole. The now-infamous temple dance from Matrix: Reloaded jumps immediately to mind.

A director's goal, IMO, should be to bring in the movie over 90 minutes and under two hours. I can appreciate a movie that had so much good footage at the end that it's just not possible. But I've seen far too many movies lately running over two hours that just didn't deserve to.

You cannot generalize about something like this. There is no correct runtime.

Because, people just like to know the running time of movies. Don't ask me why, people just do. I know I do. I like the fact that I know ahead of time that Hulk is gonna be more than 2 hours. I prepared myself after JP3's running time became known, and sure enough, the short running time was a big factor in killing that movie.

X2 was a better film because it was longer than the first. Being over 2 hours helped it big time allowing more screen time for plot and character developement.

With T3, as hyped as I am, I'm just preparing myself is all now.

The Clown Prince

The point is that something as ineffectual as runtime should not change your opinion of the movie in any way. At least not before you've seen it. Your comparison of The Hulk and Jurassic Park III shows how people start making up their minds about movies too soon, and they do it based on statistics that are more meaningless than relevant.

Filmmakers have to worry about the runtime -- you don't.

-Terminatah

 

[EinBebop]

You cannot generalize about something like this. There is no correct runtime.

Never said there was; I was objecting to the generalization that a good movie should be over two hours. But there are good guidelines. There's a reason that movies don't run 30 minutes or six hours.

 

[Simpler Simon]

There's no reason why T3 can't absolutely rock with only 109min. I want it to rock. Any casual Terminator fan wants it to rock, and with a naked Kristanna Loken in the intro, it'll probaby happen. However, hyped summer action movies that have fallen short of 2hrs. have traditionally been lacking. X-Men and Daredevil were decent but felt rushed. JPIII and MIIB became virtually plotless.

Does a 2hr movie guarantee success? No (Mummy Returns), but anything that falls short of 2hrs or goes over 2hrs 20min becomes instant ammo for the critics should a movie fail. If T3 does well, then thats that. Everyone goes home happy. But if it doesn't, everyone from Rogert Ebert to Terminator fans will first blame the director and the actors. Then they'll blame the movie for being too short, regardless of whether or not they've been going through riduculous conjecture on the internet (which this is, in a sense, but aren't most things?). T3 has a chance to avoid this. Would anyone care if the movie ran 2hrs 10min? No, because T2 ran that long, and T3 will end up being heavily compared to it. Now, besides a new director, an aging Arnold, untested actors in vital roles, extending on a series that already had a great ending, T3 will have to fight the stigma of a short running time from people like me, and become the movies main source of criticism should it fail to deliver in any way whatsoever.