Board Thread:Movies/@comment-3048593-20171206004220/@comment-3048593-20180104115931

Gemnist 2.0 wrote: KalKent wrote: The run-time for 'Black Panther' is apparently going to be about 2 hours and 15 minutes, which makes it the longest debut solo MCU-movie ('Homecoming' being a close second with 2 hours and 13 minutes). Although I do remember the run-time for 'Ragnarok' before it came out wasn't set-in-stone at that point either, since it was at one point being reported being 100 minutes, but ended up being 130 minutes.

Either way, as long as it's good I don't mind it being that length. Say what one wants about the MCU-movies, and I may be in the minority on this, but I've never thought any of them were "too long".

Runtime has never been a complaint among MCU movies, except maybe Civil War (the longest of all the films at 147 minutes), though that movie was paced well to where it wasn't an issue at all. 150 minutes is usually my limit, but I'm more than willing for Infinity War to be Peter Jackson levels of length to allow for character breathing room. Same here. Pacing is everything, which was the difference between people complaining about the length of 'BvS', while being fine with the length of 'Civil War'.

If I can binge-watch an entire season of a show with only a handful of bathroom breaks, then I can watch an epic-length movie with problem as well. Although to be fair, at least at home. Not sure if I and others would be able to do that in a theatre, which was one of the reasons people thought was why 'Blade Runner 2049' ended up being a flop at the box office.

And unlike what some people want out of 'Justice League', while I like it out of some other movies, I'm not one who wants longer cuts of an MCU-movie, since I've found each cut of each movie to be enough in showing what they wanted to do with it.