Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
By RichardLess
#4932952
Hey everyone, hope you are all staying safe & practising social distancing during these troubled times. With no news or spoilers to talk about I thought I’d begin a new discussion on Runtime! What do you think it will be? What do you want it to be? What’s too long? What’s too short? All that jazz.

Ghostbusters is always a tricky one for me. A) it’s a comedy and comedies should be on the shorter side but B)I LOVE the characters and could watch them interact all day long. That being said..

I think the runtime will be about 110 minutes, maybe a bit less. Of course, the movie will be as long as it needs to be, but since the production had a shoot of less than 70 days, 110 minutes sounds right. Anything less than 100 minutes is too short for me.

One of my criticism of GB16 was its editing and length(and there was an even longer version!) so keeping the film as tight as possible would be great.

The first GB film has a terrific pace. There isn’t a single deleted scene I’d add back in or a single scene the movie could loose. It’s a masterclass in editing & pace.

Jason’s films all tend to be on the shorter side.
User avatar
By timeware
#4932955
Running time I'm going to estimate around 140 minutes. My reasons for this is they have alot of ground to cover and alot of questions to answer.

The phasing out of the og's, the introduction of the new cast, new old equipment to cover and of course the villain.

There's also the filling of the gap with what the originals have been up to all this time.

The introduction of the mini pufts are going to be interesting. Is that going to be for one brief scene, an after credit?

Are they going to treat it like Gremlins where they multiply and become to much to handle? To me all that needs a longer running time like Lord of the rings had.

Alot of stuff to unpack.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4932956
I was thinking between 119 and 122 minutes for some reason.

If anyone needs reference:
-Ghostbusters was 105 minutes
-Ghostbusters II was 102 minutes
-Ghostbusters: Answer The Call was 117 and 134 minutes.

I'm also curious if Sony plans on a theatrical cut and an extended version like they did with ATC. The latter was an extra 17 minutes.
By RichardLess
#4932961
Running time I'm going to estimate around 140 minutes. My reasons for this is they have alot of ground to cover and alot of questions to answer.

The phasing out of the og's, the introduction of the new cast, new old equipment to cover and of course the villain.

There's also the filling of the gap with what the originals have been up to all this time.

The introduction of the mini pufts are going to be interesting. Is that going to be for one brief scene, an after credit?

Are they going to treat it like Gremlins where they multiply and become to much to handle? To me all that needs a longer running time like Lord of the rings had.

Alot of stuff to unpack.
Wait. Lord of the Rings?? Are you being serious? I mean..2 hours and 20 minutes?? Wow. That would be a looong GB movie. I can’t see it going that long. Again, this is a comedy.

The Stay Puft minis could be just a sight gag. They probably won’t be developed characters.

Don’t forget the first one is like 95 minutes before credits. Think of how much is accomplished in those 95 minutes. Same with a movie like Men In Black. It’s about 90 minutes. Very economical storytelling. We don’t need answers for every little thing. Just enough.

The extended cut of GB16 is 134 minutes right?(that’s soo long)Does anyone know how many days GB16 shot? I’d guess 75-80. Maybe more. GB afterlife was barely 60 days & working with minors, which limits the amount of time you can work per day with those actors.

Granted, amount of days shot doesn’t always equate with running time especially if it’s a long shoot because scenes can get cut. But a short shooting schedule, which GB:Afterlife had, could tell us something. But again, some directors work quicker than others. If Jason was getting 15 set ups a day? Who knows. Some directors like Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, Guillermo Del Toro & Ridley Scott shoot incredibly fast. Others like Christopher Nolan or David Fincher shoot sloooow.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4932962
The extended cut of GB16 is 134 minutes right?(that’s soo long)Does anyone know how many days GB16 shot? I’d guess 75-80. Maybe more. GB afterlife was barely 60 days & working with minors, which limits the amount of time you can work per day with those actors.
Yes, the extended cut was 134 minutes. I listed the runtimes a few posts up.

GB16 took 91 days. Started in Boston on June 18, 2015 to ended in NYC on September 19, 2015 (but I doubt everyday was a shoot).

Afterlife was July 15, 2019 to October 17, 2019 which is 125 days but it was confirmed on wrap day it was listed as Day 68 - going 6 days over the originally scheduled 62 days.
Granted, amount of days shot doesn’t always equate with running time especially if it’s a long shoot because scenes can get cut. But a short shooting schedule, which GB:Afterlife had, could tell us something. But again, some directors work quicker than others. If Jason was getting 15 set ups a day? Who knows. Some directors like Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, Guillermo Del Toro & Ridley Scott shoot incredibly fast. Others like Christopher Nolan or David Fincher shoot sloooow.
Good point.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4932963
Want? 3 hours long.

Guess? 2 hours.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4932968
I'd be fine with two hours, or a little over... But 2½ or over would probably be too long. Movies tend to be around the two hour mark these days, and I'd like a little extra time to help build both the mystery and investigation during the plot.

And seeing as we're talking about running times, why the hell do they list them in hundreds of minutes? Who counts in hundreds of minutes when "hour, minutes" makes a lot more bloody sense?
seekandannoy liked this
By RichardLess
#4932970
I'd be fine with two hours, or a little over... But 2½ or over would probably be too long. Movies tend to be around the two hour mark these days, and I'd like a little extra time to help build both the mystery and investigation during the plot.

And seeing as we're talking about running times, why the hell do they list them in hundreds of minutes? Who counts in hundreds of minutes when "hour, minutes" makes a lot more bloody sense?
That’s a good question. I think it’s the same idea behind .99 cents in retail. There might be a bit of deceitful intent behind it. Everyone knows what 3 hours and 6 minutes is. But 186 minutes? Lot of people have to think about it, or don’t think at all.
When you list something in minutes it somehow seems shorter.

Edit: I just thought a bit more about this. It may also trace back to when movies were shorter and didn’t quite make the 1 hour mark. I’m talking back in the days when they were called Nickelodeon’s.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4932972
I think it probably has something to with the way cinema's slot in the movies. You have to account for cleaning, commercials, trailers, intermission ( if that's still a thing?)and give the audience time to enter and exit the premise.

It all takes an x amount of time, which is probably easier to keep it short and just amount into minutes to find out how many shows you can give each day.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4932974
I think it probably has something to with the way cinema's slot in the movies. You have to account for cleaning, commercials, trailers, intermission ( if that's still a thing?)and give the audience time to enter and exit the premise.

It all takes an x amount of time, which is probably easier to keep it short and just amount into minutes to find out how many shows you can give each day.
I worked in a cinema back in 2008, the staff cleaning didn't seem to dictate why running times were only listed in minutes, and that wouldn't explain why they still do it on DVD cover slips.

There may have been some kind of reason once, but nowadays it seems like the sort of stupid tradition that's mostly persisting because it's "what we've always done", and not enough people are asking why it still has to be done that way.
By RichardLess
#4932975
I think it probably has something to with the way cinema's slot in the movies. You have to account for cleaning, commercials, trailers, intermission ( if that's still a thing?)and give the audience time to enter and exit the premise.

It all takes an x amount of time, which is probably easier to keep it short and just amount into minutes to find out how many shows you can give each day.
That’s an interesting theory. There is a cut off point, I don’t know what it is, let’s just say it’s 182 minutes, that if your movie meets or exceeds that time the theatre has to do 1 less showing per day. Yet longer movies seem to be the top grossing movies.

I think Audiences like longer movies. Look at the top grossing movies of all time. Most of them are over 2 hours 15 minutes(if not all).
Then you’ve got movies like Titanic, Avatar, Return of the King, Avengers Endgame, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall. All of them are big critical hits, all of them are billion dollar movies and all of them are at least 150 minutes. Isn’t that interesting? Even though they have less showings per day, they are still some of the biggest hits ever. The only one that isn’t is The Force Awakens.

Longer movies feel like an “Event”. Ya know? I remember when the Lord of the Rings movies came out, you knew you were going into a 3 hour+ movie that would be HUGE. Epic. You were going to get your monies worth in entertainment value.
User avatar
By timeware
#4932983
That's why I'm thinking over 140 minutes. if they are planning for Ghostbusters 4 that might end up happening.

I still think mini pufts is going to be more then just a cameo. You have the Puft mural on that wall, and wasn't Grace wearing a stay Puft shirt?

My other theory is she tries to keep one as a pet.
By RichardLess
#4932988
That's why I'm thinking over 140 minutes. if they are planning for Ghostbusters 4 that might end up happening.

I still think mini pufts is going to be more then just a cameo. You have the Puft mural on that wall, and wasn't Grace wearing a stay Puft shirt?

My other theory is she tries to keep one as a pet.
I really think 140 minutes is just too long for Jason Reitman or for a comedy. Look at the runtimes of his movies. Again, it’s a comedy. Quality comedies aren’t long. Can you name one? I’m trying but can’t think of a good comedy over 2 hours.


Stay Puft is a cameo in the original and shows up on bag and in an advertisement on the side of a building so...

We don’t even know if it’s confirmed to be in the movie. Frankly the idea sounds insanely stupid and like bad fan service . We don’t need the Stay Puft marshmallow man. It was a joke in the original. Don’t play a joke to death. We are already getting what sounds like Slimer 2.0 in...”Muncher”. When I hear things like “muncher” and “mini stay Puft” I start to get a bit worried.
User avatar
By timeware
#4932993
Jason's going for nalstogic. Can't get any more nalstogic then Staypuft Richardless.

Honestly though since giant stay pufts been done I'd rather see the mini version. The big bad doesn't have to be gigantic every GB film.

the one comedy I can think of that ran past 140 minutes was Shaun of the Dead.
By RichardLess
#4932994
Jason's going for nalstogic. Can't get any more nalstogic then Staypuft Richardless.

Honestly though since giant stay pufts been done I'd rather see the mini version. The big bad doesn't have to be gigantic every GB film.

the one comedy I can think of that ran past 140 minutes was Shaun of the Dead.

Say what? Shaun of the Dead is not 140 minutes. It’s 99 minutes. Or 1 hour and 39 minutes. Edgar Wright is another director known for his tight, short comedic films.

No one is saying the big bad has to be giant. But Stay Puft Mini’s is relying on our fondness from a joke. Stay Puft isnt a character. But it’s iconic and a major part of the brand. It just doesn’t sound very funny. I’m sure it will be cute and sell a lot of toys though. Plus there’s a fine line between nostalgia and fan service.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4933031
Well, we know what at least one function for the mini pufts will be, as a WETA sculpturer let slip he might be working on a new build for Jason.
mini pufts are swarming a proton pack trying to destroy it, like a gremlin would.

This probably means it happens somewhere 2/3 along the way, to establish the pufts and the fact they envision the pack as a threat. ATC did this around this point as well. It should be more of a problem here though as they are probably not able to fix it themselves. Maybe this is where Ray makes his entrance. Maybe this is where the teaser even comes in as we can hear someone working on fixing a proton pack
This Post Contains Spoilers
Maybe they pufts are trying to form back together into big puft, maybe it's just Mc Kenna Grace fondness of the brand that let them appear (the stay Puft murial hints that a factory might have been in town so she knows of it being a factor after Grooberson told them about Ghostbusters in the 80's).

It could be a one of scene, but it's probably linked to the overall story making them a growing threat.
By RichardLess
#4933038
Well, we know what at least one function for the mini pufts will be, as a WETA sculpturer let slip he might be working on a new build for Jason.
mini pufts are swarming a proton pack trying to destroy it, like a gremlin would.

This probably means it happens somewhere 2/3 along the way, to establish the pufts and the fact they envision the pack as a threat. ATC did this around this point as well. It should be more of a problem here though as they are probably not able to fix it themselves. Maybe this is where Ray makes his entrance. Maybe this is where the teaser even comes in as we can hear someone working on fixing a proton pack
This Post Contains Spoilers
Maybe they pufts are trying to form back together into big puft, maybe it's just Mc Kenna Grace fondness of the brand that let them appear (the stay Puft murial hints that a factory might have been in town so she knows of it being a factor after Grooberson told them about Ghostbusters in the 80's).

It could be a one of scene, but it's probably linked to the overall story making them a growing threat.
That’s a lot of maybe’s. What do you think of the idea of mini pufts? I can see them being used in a “subvert expectation joke”. We hear the rumbling, catch a quick glimpse of the sailor hat. The audience is expecting the Giant Mr. Stay Puft and...instead it’s a legion of tiny itty bitty ones. It could work. It just feels a bit lazy. I don’t know. Here I am criticizing an idea I haven’t even seen realized. That’s fandom in a nut shell tho innit.

I mean..we are already getting Gozer and terror dogs. Let’s be honest, Slimer is going to show up. It’s going to happen. I can see the critics sharpening their knives already. Especially with “Muncher” being a Slimer clone.

With everyone on lockdown and nothing but crappy news, getting a new trailer out ASAP should be a good idea. Hopefully.
User avatar
By timeware
#4933052
Probably but this is the nature of our discussions. We're bound to veer off topic, but at least were keeping it somewhat related to Afterlife.
It's probably about as necessary as me using my 3D printer to build a suit of mandalorian armor.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4933112
Somewhere between 100 and 120m.

Jason Reitman has never done an alternate cut of any of his films for home video, whereas Paul Feig has done alternate cuts for all of his big-budget studio comedies, so I don't think the extended version of Ghostbusters (2016) tells us anything except what the filmmaker wanted.

Well, better late than never!

Mueller novel reprints

If you go to a person's profile, and click "A[…]

Well now I motivation to survive the pandemic at l[…]

Ghostbusters Suitcase Project.

I love this idea. I currently store my uniform (as[…]