This is topic Running Time for XXX in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000583
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-24-2002, 08:59 PM:
 
So I violated one of the forum rules by asking for the running time for XXX in the Film Information section before the opening date. Sorry!

I still need to know the running time for XXX by tomorrow. This information will help me make a decision for Friday morning. I haven't been able to find the running time for this film in all of my usual places. I tried IMBD, Film Journal and all of the associated websites connected with the film.

By opening day of XXX I will no longer be interested in the running time. Most of the time I am happy to be ignorant of these facts. Most of the time I figure a film is 2 hours and that's close enough.

So if anybody has this information, great! But if it can't be answered, Sorry I asked!

 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-24-2002, 09:20 PM:
 
Sorry , I checked every place I know of and no one seems to have a run time for this. Are you seriously considering booking this incredible piece of ? Are you hoping the title will bring in the perverts?

However long it is, I can almost guarantee it will be too long, by at least an hour and a half.


 

Posted by John Daily (Member # 1362) on 07-24-2002, 11:08 PM:
 
I dunno; Vin Deisel is an incredible draw in my neck of the woods. Women love him, and guys (at least movie-going guys in their teens and twenties) want to be him. While this is probably studio-generated buzz, the word is that this is going to be this generation's Bond series (yes, there's already talk of XXX2).

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
 

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-24-2002, 11:52 PM:
 
If you really need to know so badly, Ian, I suggest
you call Sony. You could probably call TES too, but I bet they don't know yet (but you'd be surprised).

[...]
OK, I called TES (4567). They don't know the running time (yet), but they did say that it's 6 reels.

So I'd suggest you call 310 244 8007 (Sony) if you really have a good reason to wanna know...

--jhawk
 

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-24-2002, 11:57 PM:
 
I'm a little unclear on why it's a no no to ask for info prior to opening. Since I rarely screen a film *after* opening this is pretty much the only time this information is of interest to me. And why I generally only post to that section when a particular film has some special characteristic or once in a while I simply have a whim to.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2002, 12:12 AM:
 
It's because requests were being put in for EVERYTHING way, way ahead of time. Then, by the time the first trade show or public screening came up, the request was a couple of pages back and we started to have double threads going.

Once someone on these forums handles a print, they post what they know at that point. For a situation like Ian's, posting here in GL or Yak works fine and will get a much quicker response. Most people don't check the FITA forum for info someone needs quickly either. If Ian's post had remained in FITA, I'll bet there wouldn't be a single reply yet (not that these have answered his question, but at least John has provided enough info to let Ian know it is under 2 hours.)

By the way, since you are in a special situation of running screenings, you especially can help people get the info extra early.


 

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-25-2002, 12:50 PM:
 
So I called that number at Sony Pictures that John posted, and spoke to Wendy. Apparently it's the number of her desk. But she was very helpful and told me that the running time for XXX is 114 minutes or 1 hour 54 minutes for those who are math impaired like me.

My reason for asking is that the exhibitor's screening is tomorrow, Friday, July 26 at 9:30 AM. Some of my staff wanted to go but we need to be back to our theatre by opening at Noon. The theatre where XXX is playing is 36.6 miles away and might take 44 minutes or an hour and a half if traffic is f**ked. 9:30 AM is an unusual time for an exhibitor's screening to begin; normally they start at 10:00 AM or 2:00 PM. I figure that it's starting early because that theatre will have Goldmember with an early showtime and want us out of the building.

So even with the early start time, with the movie being essentially two hours long and the drive taking perhaps 45 minutes that still leave us 15 minutes late for work. But if the highway is clear, we could make it one time. So do we go? Or is this piece of not worth the effort?

 

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-25-2002, 01:36 PM:
 
Why are they calling this "XXX" when it has nothing to do with porn??
 
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 07-25-2002, 01:37 PM:
 
Have you seen the trailer?
Doesnt look worth it to me.
Id just wait or not see it at all.
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-25-2002, 02:10 PM:
 
There's different kinds of porn now.

You got your sex porn, ski porn (Warren Miller), surf porn, airplane porn (Discovery Wings Channel), and Projection Porn (The Boston Light & Sound website).

XXX is stunt porn.
 

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-25-2002, 02:44 PM:
 
For the X impaired, here is a short X lesson...


XXX was a fake rating created by the porn industry...

X is the term for Extreme sports...

XXX is the name of a non porn movie starring Vin Diesel as an extreme sports person to the extreme, or times three, or XXX...


And it doesn't matter if the movie is crap. It will kill all comers at the box office, Vin Diesel has tremendous draw, for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

It will be much like Fast and the Furious, as it is produced and directed by the same guy, Rob Cohen if I am not mistaken. So if you hated that, you will probably hate this. But that film raked in the cash, and so will this.

Dave
 

Posted by Peter Dougherty (Member # 686) on 07-25-2002, 05:43 PM:
 
quote:
There's different kinds of porn now.
You got your sex porn, ski porn (Warren Miller), surf porn, airplane porn (Discovery Wings Channel), and Projection Porn (The Boston Light & Sound website).

Don't forget Weather Porn (a.k.a. Torn-Porn) on Discovery and TLC !
 

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-25-2002, 08:19 PM:
 
There's also Food Porn, defined by some chef's as the FRENCH LAUNDRY COOKBOOK by Thomas Keller. If you see this in a book store, check it out...absolutely beautiful.


 

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 07-25-2002, 11:13 PM:
 
furniture porn


 

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-26-2002, 11:08 AM:
 
And then there's sugar-coated porn...

A whole lot of people (men and women) are going to rush out to see this movie for no other reason than the sheer fact that Vin Diesel is in it. You could say that "guys want to be him" but, in my opinion, that's just another way of saying "they think he's hot."

The stunts are certainly a draw, no question. But when analyzing why Vin Diesel has a following, it's always going to boil down to some form of physical admiration. Call it what you want, it's lust. Pure and simple.

They knew just what they were doing when they named this flick. This will be a moist-fest.

Grab some napkins and enjoy your symptom...er...movie.

(let the flaming begin)


 

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-26-2002, 01:42 PM:
 
Well I hate this movie even more now if the X's stand for EXtreme!! I saw Fast and the Furious about a month before it opened and hated that too, and I hated it even more when it actually did good business!
I do wanna check out that movie "Extreme Days" though cause it looks good for a laugh.
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-26-2002, 06:03 PM:
 
Well, I went and saw this movie, this morning.

It's silly, ridiculous, poorly written, the acting is terrible and the stunts were there simply to be stunts and did not serve the story in any way.

In short, it was great fun.

If you think the following are spoilers, go and have your head examined.
You’ve seen all this in the trailer.

Most unconvincing stunt: Vin Diesel kissing a girl.
(and no Ky, he shouldn’t be kissing a boy either.)

Most ridiculous stunt: Vin Diesel throwing a bomb behind him so he could snowboard in front of an avalanche thus taking out the bad guys communications. I would have thrown the bomb from the airplane at the beginning of the scene. (But then you would have missed the jumping, the parachuting and the snowboarding.)

Most absurd concoction: A solar powered submarine, on hydrofoils no less.
(Solar powered & Submarine. Get it?)


 

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-26-2002, 06:10 PM:
 
quote:
It's silly, ridiculous, poorly written, the acting is terrible and the stunts were there simply to be stunts and did not serve the story in any way.

In short, a perfect summer movie!

The acting couldn't be as bad as in Episode II, could it? THAT would be bad!
 

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-26-2002, 06:22 PM:
 
No, to be fair, Vin Diesel has more personality than Hayden Christianson. He would have been great fun in Star Wars, as long as he didn't have to kiss any girls.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-26-2002, 06:38 PM:
 
I think the title is actually taken from a spy movie from the early 60s called Triple Cross, starring Christopher Plummer. In the trailer three X's are shown and then it says Triple Cross, The true story of....
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-27-2002, 12:48 PM:
 
Are most theatres putting "XXX" on their marquee, or would "TRIPLE X" be better?
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-28-2002, 07:43 AM:
 
Well sorry whomever didn't like Fast and Furious. I loved the movie, and saw it at least 50 times so far.

I also loved Lawrence of Arabia. So Idiot, not am I.

Sometimes, you have to just let go of reality, quit hating everything around you, and just have some damn fun!!!

I mean really! How hard is it to have a guilty pleasure? personally I think you love it so much you just can't admit it.

My guilty pleasure is dumb films that make no sense whatsoever.

For example.. some of my favorites are....

Tank Girl
Fast and the Furious..

and... oh wait... if I am going to keep kicking ass in the film qoute game, I had better stop now..


dave
 

Posted by Kyle Caudill (Member # 1252) on 07-28-2002, 11:56 AM:
 
Fast and the Furious was aweseome. How can you not like it? You have hot girls for guys and buff guys for girls. You have action and somewhat of a plot. The movie entertained me, I can not ask for anything more in a movie. If I am entertained when watching a movie, its good in my opinion.


 

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-28-2002, 01:05 PM:
 
Why should you feel guilty about loving "dumb" movies? I hear this all the time, and it makes no sense. It's almost as if people are afraid to admit that they like certain films just because other people will judge them in a certain way because of it. That's kinda goofy. I like THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS. I'll probably never watch it again, but it was better than that piece of shit which won the Oscar for Best Picture last year. And nobody's made fun of for liking that movie (although they probably should be).

I'm starting to ramble, but my point is this: If you like something, just say so. Don't apologize for it. Don't diminish it by saying it was "bad" or "stupid." Here. I'll start.

I think that CROSSROADS is one of the best films of year so far. It wasn't bad. It wasn't stupid.
 

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 07-28-2002, 07:36 PM:
 
Manny said,

'Grab some napkins and enjoy your symptom...er...movie'

UHHHHHHHH.... I don't know what you are going to be doing during this movie, but I figure it should be done during a screening by yourself! (LOL)

As for the Crossroads remark, I'll let someone else field that. Two hits in one post would be too easy!


 

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-28-2002, 09:55 PM:
 
See? That's exactly why people think that liking "dumb" movies is a guilty pleasure. As if the stupidity of saying that CROSSROADS is a good movie is so blatantly obvious that anyone could put me in my place. The fact that most people will chuckle at my last post and shake their head and go, "Poor dumb old Mike," doesn't bother me. I don't feel "guilty" for saying that. I don't see why I should. I think that my love for CROSSROADS is justified. I just dug up a review of it that I wrote mere hours after I first saw it. I'll post it in the movie reviews section. What I would feel guilty about is going along with popular opinion by saying that I thought a movie was good or bad even when I didn't.

Look at it this way: If everyone would acknowledge their true feelings on any given film, we wouldn't have to listen to people talk about how great GONE WITH THE WIND is anymore.
 

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-29-2002, 01:00 AM:
 
a GUILTY PLEASURE is not something that you feel guilty about actually. It is something that you love and people TELL YOU that you should feel guilty about enjoying it, but you don't and you are proud of it. That is what a GUILTY PLEASURE is.

Dave
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2002, 03:20 AM:
 
I have started a thread in Yak for "guilty pleasures".
 
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-06-2002, 03:45 PM:
 
The actual title provided by Revolution Studios is xXx.

All theaters using Fandango -- Century, Cinemark, Cineplex Odeon (US), Loews, Regal and (eventually) UA -- are going by this xXx spelling.

Besides, xXx looks cool -- like what you see on a bottle of ale.
 

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-06-2002, 10:17 PM:
 
Running time that was given to us for this movie was 124mins.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-07-2002, 01:33 PM:
 
Now we just need a new actor named John Holmes doing wholesome mainstream movies!
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2