INDIANA JONES AND THE NUMB BUTT CHEEKS
- By Devin Faraci
- Published 04/15/2008
- News
Jeff Wells is reporting that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a locked picture, and that the final cut runs a whopping two hours and twenty plus minutes. That makes it the longest Indy film by a little bit - Last Crusade had previously held the record at just over two hours.Wells also reports that the final cut will be screened in-house this week, but Paramount people are going to be the only ones seeing this. I was told a long time ago - when the movie was still filming - to not expect to see Crystal Skull until maybe a day or two before domestic release. According to some insiders, this policy was a smart one, as the movie may not have turned out to be what people in the industry call 'good.' I'm hoping for the best, of course.
While we're talking about long summer blockbusters, one of the posters at Wells' blog mentions something that I've also heard rumored: The Dark Knight is looking to be damn long. The poster, Mr. Gittes, says he's heard three hours; I've been told 'over two and a half hours.' Maybe we'll split the difference and call it 2:45. My source tells me that while the film is still in editing (ie, anything can change in the next month or so), Christopher Nolan seems incapable - or maybe unwilling - to cut the movie closer to 120 minutes. Of course we live in the age of the bladder bursting blockbuster, so he'll probably get away with it. But damn if all of this doesn't remind me of the excess of the 60s, right before Hollywood collapsed under the weight of shitty, pompous epics and shitty, tedious musicals.
Spread The Word
Related Articles
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by Scott)
That comparison to the 60s is just dandy.
Comment #2 (Posted by atomo)
God, I hope Spielberg pulls this off. No doubt there'll people who hate it no matter what, but I have hope. Then again, I had this same feeling about Spidey 3, and that was a festering arse of a movie.
I will happily sit through three hours of TDK.
Comment #3 (Posted by brian)
Pathological Nolan knock? Check.
Childishly drawn connections to 60's Hollywood? Check.
Insightful, original reporting? Fucking blank.
“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”
Roger Ebert said that. Watch the movie, or be a 'tard and Mad Lib your review three months before the release date.
Jeesus
Comment #4 (Posted by Don't worry.)
This is what I call "un-news."
Comment #5 (Posted by Tony Scarboni)
I gotta say, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was my fav of the series, and Im looking foward to the Crystal Skull more than I am IRON MAN. That being said I thought BATMAN BEGINS was overrated as all hell. Tim Burton's version was much better in my opinion. We'll see if Nolan can clean up his act in the sequel, the first 10min sneak preview they showed was promising. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend youtubing it.
Comment #6 (Posted by El Eberto)
Word Brian ! Word!
Comment #7 (Posted by this is the way the world ends)
Devin's persistent negativity towards THE DARK KNIGHT drives me up a wall.
Anyway, I think the long running time is a good thing. It's what I've been expecting ever since I got my hands on some call sheets for the film way back when... What they indicated was a Batman epic.
The storylines of THE DARK KNIGHT can't be done justice unless the running time is longer than BEGINS by a decent margin.
Comment #8 (Posted by Voivodling)
You don't want either movie to be good ... because that is the "critic" way. Shame you always have to find those movies that seventeen people in America will see to praise.
OPIE AND ANTHONY! O&A PARTY ROCK! XM 202!
Comment #9 (Posted by Kristina)
I'm sorry, but 2 hrs 20 minutes isn't really WHOPPING. It all depends on the film's PACE. King Kong Way Too Long wouldn't have felt like a three hour flick if that first hour had better pacing and less useless scenes. If this thing is all killer, no filler, then I have no problem with the runtime.
Comment #10 (Posted by JSW)
Devin is not a critic. He's a movie fan. That aside; Nolan may want to keep his movie long in order to honour Heath, or it fits the conceit of the way he SHOT THE FILM! It's not like we have not seen this coming for months now. We knew that Dark Knight had a lot going on. Why would a long run time be so shocking?
Whateverthecase... Devin is being his regular wet-blanket self. Do not let it distract you from the awesomeness coming this Summer. Especially in light of this guy looking forward to the WHACKNESS because he really loved 1994!
Comment #11 (Posted by an unknown user)
As bad as it is, Devin is the purported intellectual in the CHUD roster. Yikes!
Comment #12 (Posted by Karl's Head Is Like A Fucking Orange)
it's a bit sad to be carping about Batman when you haven't actually seen it, don't you think? or is it okay to be a close minded (anti-)fanboy, as long as it's you? hypocrit. wait till you see the movie, then you can be a negative nancy all you like, otherwise you just come off a little "sad, bitter internet critic".
Comment #13 (Posted by M)
Only when I breath.
Comment #14 (Posted by Michael K)
Devin's anti-Batman-Begins-and-Dark-Knight attitude is really tired. We all get it by now, Devin, you don't like the film(s). Move it along and save the negativity/positivity until your review.
Comment #15 (Posted by SciCurious)
Extra running time probably = a long-winded Goodbye Indy sequence.
Comment #16 (Posted by stretch)
the dark knight is gunna be a long ass movie? best news i've heard in a while
Comment #17 (Posted by slider_alt)
Best news I've gotten in a long time! I'm looking forward to both movies, especially "The Dark Knight." These people acting like they didn't enjoy "Batman Begins" and who aren't sure about "The Dark Knight" can just go watch "Superhero Movie" a bunch of times when it comes out on DVD and leave the real epic movies for me and everyone else to see.
Comment #18 (Posted by spacesheik)
this is GREAT the longer the better!! - lets hope its a great flick
Comment #19 (Posted by BurmaShave)
God forbid I should pay 12.50 for a film and get 150 minutes! I want to pay 10 dollars per minute, at least. 70 minutes would be ideal. Actually, I would prefer it also had an intermission.
Comment #20 (Posted by Matt Packer)
I've been thinking for a long time now that TDK will have to be long, and now there's indications that it is, I'm delighted. We need this to do for superhero movies what The Godfather I and II did for mobsters.
Comment #21 (Posted by Hever Clever)
Hollywood sucks, but i don´t think Indy 4 is
gonna be MacKenna´s Gold.
Comment #22 (Posted by an unknown user)
The Dutch Federation for Cinematography (NFC) site, which posts info from the European distributors of various films, says 123 minutes for Indy 4 (Source: Universal):
http://www.nfcstatistiek.nl/rel.htm
Wells sites no source and seems to be taking a recent comment by John Williams ("...the film is seven reels long, and each reel is twenty minutes, and we have mixed reel seven last night [April 9th].") too literally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRPxt_QYRJc
Just because seven reels of 35mm film can hold approx. 140 minutes + does not necessitate that the film must be that exact length. The first six reels could be packed and the seventh could be short.
Comment #23 (Posted by messi)
2 and a half hours of a badass beating the shit out of cirminals is much cooler in the eyes of people than overblown musicals. Again the difference. A guy beating the shit out of criminals. Where's the intelligence Devin. By the way remember The Godfather part 2 was 3 hours and 20 mins long and this had no massive battle scenes like Return of the King. It's how you use the time.
Comment #24 (Posted by Ren)
"Pathological Nolan knock? Check. Childishly drawn connections to 60's Hollywood? Check. Insightful, original reporting? Fucking blank. “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.” Roger Ebert said that. Watch the movie, or be a 'tard and Mad Lib your review three months before the release date. Jeesus"
Yeah, the tedious cunt only left out 'I <3 Guillermo (because he's the only director that gives me the time of day and lets me suck his cock)' and a 'Hellboy 2 will only be 85 minutes' for those playing 'Devin Faraci Bullshit Bingo'
Bless 'im. Nothing will ever top the hilarious 'Don't you know who I am' strop over the FF4 II showing, mind. Easily his finest hour.
Comment #25 (Posted by Go Away, Large One)
Horrible non-news reporting. And another Batman knock. Jesus.
Comment #26 (Posted by Parker)
Damn, Brian - almost spat my coffee out with that post.
LOLz.
Comment #27 (Posted by an unknown user)
The credits now a days take up 20 minutes, so you can't really trust running times anymore. Especially for blockbusters.
Comment #28 (Posted by truth)
This post requires repeating: Pathological Nolan knock? Check. Childishly drawn connections to 60's Hollywood? Check. Insightful, original reporting? Fucking blank. “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.” Roger Ebert said that. Watch the movie, or be a 'tard and Mad Lib your review three months before the release date. Jeesus
Comment #29 (Posted by Busboy)
So, what about "insiders" saying that Indy 4 is not very good? Care to follow this up or is this just anothe rlittle pop to make yourself seem different from the crowd? Of course I'm afraid that this is a possibility, but please don't just say these things.
Jeez, no one is allowed otmake anything good anymore, eh?
Comment #30 (Posted by barkatthemoon)
The "Rings" movies were long, and still interesting their entire running time.
Indy 4 might not be what we expect, but there is no way in hell it could be a "BAD" movie. This is a great summer to be a geek.
Comment #31 (Posted by The Green Gobbler)
If 'The Dark Knight' is good, I don't care how fucking long it is.
Comment #32 (Posted by cholm)
With all of the plot that's rumored to be going on I'd be severely disappointed if the running time wasn't close to three hours.
Comment #33 (Posted by Joe)
I think I'd actually rather read Phil's articles at this point over Devin's
Comment #34 (Posted by Nac Dasty)
I like it when Devin gets the Batman fanboys panties all bunched up. The first movie stunk and I don't know why this will be better. So what are you people, Blackcoats?
Comment #35 (Posted by perturbed)
seriously? 350 words on how long a movie might be? which is actually average for a summer blockbuster? so 350 on how long a movie should be? did you even go to college, or is journalism something you picked up from Early Edition?
Comment #36 (Posted by Peter Venkman)
I agree, hell, the Dark Knight could be 3 1/2 freaking hours but as long as it's good, I'm going to see it more then once no matter how long it is. if it's good! I dont want it to end, if it's bad..then I want out asap.. so make Batman as long as Nolan wants, at this point he can do what ever he wants with Batman
Comment #37 (Posted by Steven)
This is great reporting! Not even Paramount has seen the film yet and /Film & CHUD are already reporting it 'may not be that good'. Fucking ridiculous.
Comment #38 (Posted by a man with a 14 inch cock with a 4 pound devin tur)
I just made sweet sweet love to devins massive and hairy butt cheeks. I love how his ass pimples around his anus pop and ooze to provide lubrication for my cock as I fuck him. I only wish devin would consider a enema before one of our fuck sessions as im tired of pulling my dick out of his ass with four pound turds attached to the tip. I guess its worth it to hear him scream "fuck me harder batman" and when I fuck him with his favorite dildo he calls del toro and whispers "if only you were indy".
Comment #39 (Posted by Your Mother)
So no one has seen "Crystal Skull" yet, but "the movie may not have turned out to be what people in the industry call 'good.'"
That claim is what people in the real world call baseless. And idiotic.
Comment #40 (Posted by Kaldeidoscope)
The longer the better. We haven't seen Dr. Jones in nineteen years... and Batman Begins was good enough to warrant a long sequel. More bang for our bucks...
Comment #41 (Posted by eric)
I can understand the skepticism behind Indy 4. Outside the forums and talkbacks mainstream audiences seem to want spectacle over story. I know kids who find the original SW trilogy boring. I've had someone try to convince me the Mummy films were better than Indy basing their argument 'that the effects were cooler'. I've read people tearing down the Mist because the CG were unrealistic. Thought that was the point. People want the eye candy of a Pirates or Transformers film. Seeing that Indy is going more practical in effects and not deviating from formula it looks like Indy 4 will be a summer blockbuster for 15 years ago, not today. I'm looking forward to it and will be there opening day. But, it should be interesting to see how it's received by audiences.
Comment #42 (Posted by Arch Stanton)
Dev this article needed a title as classic as "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Urine". Still my all-time fav.
Comment #43 (Posted by I Want A 5 Hour BATMAN)
I miss the hey day of the 60's, when movies could breathe. When action flicks like GREAT ESCAPE and DIRTY DOZEN punched in two hours plus. Only today, with short attention spans and a severe shortage of patience do we scold the artists for bringing us more bang for our buck. For shame.
Comment #44 (Posted by Lord of the Apes)
I hope The Dark Knight bombs hard, just to make you stunted fanboys cry. Why aren't you chimps able to handle dissent or criticism? Evolve!
Comment #45 (Posted by Edward)
Who are the "insiders" who are reporting this? I mean, how about a little clue as to their veracity? If no one has seen it, and that's been Spielberg's policy all along (not just on this film, but on every recent movie he's made), then who is reporting on its quality?
Wow, this one really belongs in the ol' rumor-mill heap in a big way. It's not even rumor. It's mindless whispering.
And who are the "Paramount people" who are going to be seeing this? Why Paramount? They didn't even PRODUCE the thing. Get that part right at least. Seems to me Paramount's about the LAST group Spielberg would need to show this to.
There's not quite an ounce of sense in this post. Just the musings of someone with too much time on his hands who wants to sound like he knows what he's talking about, but is mostly getting "gossip" from low-level assistants who think they know what they don't. Sheesh.
Comment #46 (Posted by Devin)
Edward, Paramount's going to be pretty upset when they discover this isn't their film. You should let them know.
Comment #47 (Posted by Lulz)
Nolan says The Dark Knight is a crime epic. So a long length is pretty expected. And I hope it's longer than Batman Begins. It needs to be. I want to see as little as possible cut out of this film.
Comment #48 (Posted by Fadel)
I think he needs to show it to Paramount because they need to make sure the colors are right in the Paramount logo at the beginning of the film?
After all, they're spending a lot of money advertising it and distributing it.
Comment #49 (Posted by Aethyrr)
Too bad the TDK reference is hidden inside another article--too good I clicked to read it anyway.. To me, a long-ass TDK movie is more than good news! Great, I'm excited now--thanks CHUD :)
*this comment is sarcasm-free! I swear!
Comment #50 (Posted by Edward)
Devin, have you looked at the credits for an Indiana Jones movie? Paramount Pictures Presents a Lucasfilm Ltd. Production. That means Lucasfilm is the producer. As in Spielberg works for Lucasfilm. I'm pretty sure Paramount is fully aware of this little distinction. You might want to be, too.
Comment #51 (Posted by Vincet Von Vampyr)
Compared to the bullshit Hollywood has given us in the past, Batman Begins was a huge breath of freshair. When was the last time superhero flicks had interesting stories? Exactly. Begins gave us something interesting, and I'm amazed at how easily it's flown over some people's heads. lol, maybe these flatfoots are better off watching tripe like Superhero Movie. They'll get hurt less often.
And to Lord of the Apes, criticism is welcome, stupidity is not.

