Broom Kid said:
just a correction to the end titles preview: There’s no “h” in Jon Favreau. Also, the directors credits should probably be all on the same card instead of split over two.
Also, it’s a thing I see a lot around here, but I feel like aiming for a runtime for the sake of hitting the runtime instead of letting the runtime be whatever it is naturally when you feel the pacing is perfect is a practice that only makes sense when you’re a studio actively trying to squeeze out as many screenings as possible.
If you’re fan-editing, and it’s never going to be in a theater, there’s no real reason to aim for runtime benchmarks for the sake of nothing other than hitting the benchmarks. Usually this concern goes the other way (people refusing to cut a movie under a certain runtime because then it’ll be “too short” despite the fact “too short” doesn’t mean anything in the abstract like that) but if you feel like you had the pacing really solid a couple edits back and the only reason you pushed it to go shorter is just so you can say you pushed it shorter, I’d suggest maybe re-thinking that inclination and really giving that longer cut a rewatch to see if it really does just feel better at the prior length.
Anyway, I’m very glad to see you’re back to fanediting and I’m very much looking forward to seeing how this project turns out.
Thanks for the spelling Correction.
In terms of having a target runtime, the reason I use it as a guide is because I’m editing TV episodes into a movie. It gives an indication of whether there is too much or too little material to produce a movie. Over 2.5 hours suggests there is too much being crammed in, and 2 separate movies is a better option. Throughout this edit I felt I’ve been pushing things to put it into a single movie.
I agree the feel and pacing is more important, but in my experience sitting down to watch something over 2.5 hours is challenging, no matter how good it is!