THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Run-Time Revealed?

Theater chain AMC have (seemingly) revealed the running time for Marc Webb's upcoming Spidey reboot on their website, and fans might be a little disappointed in how short it could turn out to be..

Follow Mark "RorMachine":
By Mark "RorMachine" Cassidy - 4/30/2012
The running time of The Amazing Spider-Man seems to have been revealed on AMC’s website, and at a pretty measly 90 mins - very short for a blockbuster these days - some fans are bound to be disappointed..



Ordinarily I would be surprised if AMC posted this type of info without being completely certain that it's on the level, but if you notice in the pic above, they do list Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as part of the cast! So maybe they are also mistaken about the movie's length. We'll have to take it with a pinch of salt for now, but if this does turn out to be legit, how do you guys feel about such a short movie - especially given the fact that all of Raimi's previous Spider-Man movies were significantly longer? Thanks to Hypable for the heads up.









Source: AMCtheaters.com
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
1
LIKE!
57 Comments
1 2
PaulRom - 4/30/2012, 9:33 AM
Taking this with a grain of salt, mostly because it has Raimi, Dunst and Maguire named there.
WolvieCBM - 4/30/2012, 9:34 AM
The film is not yet classified, so I'm not sure if this is true. From what Webb said, it will be closer to 2 hours. We'll see.
MarkJulian - 4/30/2012, 9:42 AM
No way it's this short.
Jolt17 - 4/30/2012, 9:46 AM
And the "fourth film in the Spider-Man franchise" isn't so precise either, eh? Not taking it...or, I hope it's wrong.
StrangerX - 4/30/2012, 9:48 AM
no way is this for The Amazing Spider-Man
RorMachine - 4/30/2012, 9:50 AM
Patientzero, did you read the articxle?
AlSimmons - 4/30/2012, 9:51 AM
Glad to see Raimi's still on this lololol.
RorMachine - 4/30/2012, 9:52 AM
..None of that means it's necessarily fake anyway, theater chains often post mixed up or completely bogus details in their movie synopses along with the proper specs. The one that revealed the runtime for TDK also had a made up description for that movie.
spiralblitze - 4/30/2012, 9:53 AM
bollocks
PsyGuy - 4/30/2012, 9:55 AM
I actually am ok with this. I don't think spider-man needs to feel long.
Chaplin - 4/30/2012, 9:55 AM
Hahaha Toby and Kirsten are listed..... i call BS
SuperSomething616 - 4/30/2012, 9:57 AM
They've also listed the director as Marc Webb & Sam Raimi and the cast as Andrew Garfield, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Emma Stone...so yeah take this with a pinch of salt...

The final cut probably is not even completely finished yet...stupid AMC!!!
Shaman - 4/30/2012, 9:59 AM
It's not like the lizard needed any more screen time to be accurately fleshed out anyways. All that's left is Spidey's origin which they can fastrack and the Gwen romance which will surely take most of it all.
SmellofDuty - 4/30/2012, 10:02 AM
Yeah, it's definitely not right.
SpiderFan35 - 4/30/2012, 10:02 AM
Also starring Billy Crystal, Kenau Reeves and Jon Lovitz lol.

Seriously though, I think that if the story can be told concisely then 90 mins is plenty, more is not always better unless it is really warranted.

Thor was almost 2 hours and it felt rushed, Cap America was just over 2 and it seemed to drag in parts for me so time is not the factor, but what they do with it that counts.
santoanderson - 4/30/2012, 10:09 AM
Yeah, and I bet Tobey Maguire's in the movie too...
071808 - 4/30/2012, 10:16 AM
If true, it does not bode well for the film.

If we are to receive copious amounts of Lizard/Spidey action, 1.5 hrs. is not enough time for character development. If 1.5 hrs. is enough time for character development, then expect little action.

Also, an hour and a half run time brings two films to mind:

FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer

and

Green Lantern

Hmmm....
TPerryoo7 - 4/30/2012, 10:16 AM
LOL. holy shit cameos from toby *CONFIRMED*
QUITEMASSIVE - 4/30/2012, 10:16 AM
bull
luffycapri - 4/30/2012, 10:23 AM
BULL SH$T
AlexDeLarge87 - 4/30/2012, 10:24 AM
WTF?!!O_o

I dont like it. I dont like it at all.
Should be at least 2h!
AC1 - 4/30/2012, 10:30 AM
Bullshit. Calling it. Total bullshit. If the film is anything less than 2hrs long I will be extremely disappointed. And the fact that it lists Sam Raimi as co-director and Tobey McGuire and Kirsten Dunst as co-stars also makes me highly skeptical of this report.
SpiderFan35 - 4/30/2012, 10:33 AM
@Gusto: LMAO!
SkywayTraffic - 4/30/2012, 10:35 AM
I'd be pissed as hell... That said though, I don't believe this like at all.
SpiderFan35 - 4/30/2012, 10:39 AM
@Gusto: reminds me of this one

marvel72 - 4/30/2012, 10:40 AM
this a load of bollocks,why are maguire & dunst listed?
ThaHood - 4/30/2012, 10:41 AM
wow this is a huge FAIL!there is no way its going to be that short.
leopoldinio - 4/30/2012, 10:42 AM
no fa...way, too short.
JDUKE25 - 4/30/2012, 10:45 AM
BS. They wouldn't make such a short film, especially for the reboot. They're not gonna go from making 2-2 1/2 hour long movies to 1 1/2 hour long movie. Some people are already on the fence about the reboot, this would just push them over the edge. And with all that other crap listed on there (Tobey, Kirsten, the fourth film in the spider-man franchise) makes me think BS even more.
6of13 - 4/30/2012, 10:53 AM
I feel that that above write-up is nothing more than generic. I am guessing whoever wrote it just went with what they thought they knew i.e. Tobey, Kirsten. And since 90 mins could be considered a standard minimum running of many movies, I guess the writer just went with it.

If I had to bet, at least 2hours, maybe 2 hours 15 mins.
6of13 - 4/30/2012, 10:56 AM
I think the above write-up is nothing more than a filler. If it was anything more, than whoever wrote could have easily check any movie website to get a synopsis which is clearly not included in the write-up. Therefore, it is a filler. Plain and simple.
JDUKE25 - 4/30/2012, 11:00 AM
I thought it was already reported a while back it was around 2 hours, or the same runtime the first spider-man movie was?

Anyway....if this was true???

OnLeatherWings - 4/30/2012, 11:06 AM
I'm going to say this is fake. Come back with real news
LucasMend - 4/30/2012, 11:11 AM
Doubt it
TheAmazingSpiderMan47 - 4/30/2012, 11:20 AM
this is the first thing i've heard that upset me about this film ... it cant be true, theres way too much going on to tell a decent story in 1.5 hrs
SpiderFan35 - 4/30/2012, 11:35 AM
@Gusto: I was wondering where he is today...no Wi-fi out there I guess ;)
LordThanos231 - 4/30/2012, 11:36 AM
This must be another bad joke, I'm expecting the movie will be at least 2 hours long.
bhorwith22 - 4/30/2012, 11:50 AM
GreyChaos13Zero - 4/30/2012, 11:54 AM
FAIL!!! if it's true, just sayin'?)
2gold - 4/30/2012, 12:00 PM
Maybe it's just the generic listing. Just basically a placeholder that they will update as they go. No way in hell could they redo the origin in that short of time. Of course if this is true, that could valid that one report of disappointed executives. If they found out their big franchiser was an hour and a half long to restart, I'd be pissed too. But I'm calling it's a placeholder until full details.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.