Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Gods, it's going to be a long wait to November with this crap being discussed into oblivion. 
Gods, it's going to be a long wait to November with this crap being discussed into oblivion.
Which is an artificial binary. You don't know those are the only two options. And as I keep saying over and over and over again, whether this specific story works at that length is a separate issue from whether Marvel is once again shortchanging its female characters in its movie schedule. This is the only female-led feature film in Phase 5 or the announced part of Phase 6, and it's the shortest film in the entire MCU despite having to serve three different heroines. Is it really so hard to see why that could be reason for concern, given that it took the MCU 11 years to do its first female-led film and this is only its fourth? Can we please, please stop pretending that this is just about whether a specific film's story works at a certain length? That has never been what I'm actually concerned with here.
It is worth keeping in mind that this is all based on a rumour. And similar rumours have proven inaccurate before. And a second contradictory rumour popped up almost immediately adding on an extra quarter of an hour.
Either ways it’s all rumour. Could be rubbish.
Either ways it’s all rumour. Could be rubbish.
I don't. I just cannot see how a 90 to 98 minute movie is supposed to be satisfying. Unless these rumors prove to be false, I suspect that the MCU/Disney suits don't really care about this movie . . . along with a certain faction of the franchise's fandom. But you know, everyone has their preferences. I gave up caring about Iron Man after 2015.
I'd list many great movies with even shorter run times, but since some of the permanently angry people here seem to hate everything, there'd be no point. "I hate Stand By Me and The Lion King." would probably be the response, missing the point that a movie runtime is not indicative of quality.
Which is precisely my point. It's not about this single movie in isolation. It's about what I'm afraid it might mean for the future of the MCU, and whether it will continue to give its female heroes less screen time and focus.
I hope that's not the case, but I recognize it as a possible concern. I wish people here would stop overreacting to an expression of concern by assuming it's an expression of absolute certainty of belief and hastening to debunk it. That's not how healthy, intelligent debate works. One can voice a concern without assuming it's a certainty. It's simply being alert to a risk, like saying "Watch out for icy roads." It doesn't mean it's guaranteed that your car will skid on the ice, it's just advising you to be alert to the potential risk going forward.
Length does not equal quality. I'm not sure what part of that is so hard to grasp.
And until a couple of days ago it never even entered my head that is was something that even needed to be explained.
And until a couple of days ago it never even entered my head that is was something that even needed to be explained.
I've already explicitly and repeatedly said that that is not my concern at all.
There's also girth!
Do you enjoy any older movies, such as films from the Golden Age? Many ran under 90 minutes, and some are still among the most satisfying and revered in film history.
After the first film.
Agreed.
I admit that's the case. However, Marvel has come under a bit of criticism in recent projects for bloated run times, it's possible some studio exec decided by fiat the movie needed 30 minutes cut off run time. I hope not, of course.
Another possibility is that in a cost-saving move, they decided to trim down the CGI action scenes from what is normal in an MCU movie. This...could actually be an improvement. The MCU is better at staging fight scenes than many other franchises, but they've been getting overly long, nonetheless.
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.