Stylin Online T-Shirts
 
Hobby Link Japan TFSource Big Bad Toy Store Robot Kingdom ToyArena Captured Prey

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon Running Time Finally Confirmed

Posted on 05-28-2011 at 04:50 AM by SilverOptimus under Transformers Movie (Just Movie) (All Transformers Movie News)
Transformers-3-Dark-of-the-Moon-Poster_1304096952
After so many rumors, here we are with the confirmed running time of Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

According to the Official Michael Bay Website, the running time of Transformers 3 is 134 Minutes (in other words 2 Hours and 14 Minutes).

As our good buddy fallen_revenge said... Grab a big bucket of popcorn and plenty to drink, put on your 3D Cine-Masks (give the Bumblebee mask to your girlfriend, make sure your friend bring one as well)... Enjoy the movie!
Views: 15,042 / Credit: fallen_revenge of the 2005 Boards!
Moy
fallen_revenge
I accidentally had a typo with Dark does anybody know how to change it?
fallen_revenge
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen_revenge View Post
I accidentally had a typo with Dark does anybody know how to change it?
Never mind!
Suchus Prime
Nice can't wait for it.
brains
Interesting, So it's about 15 mins shorter than ROTF and the original.
Nervol
Thats great news imo. Hopefully this means the movie will be much leaner than the last 2. ROTF did NOT need to be 150 minutes
SPLIT LIP
Awesome. Not too long, not too short.
The Bucket Kitten
Yay, 16 mins. shorter than what I was expecting, but still, Yay.
Number1sikko
Sounds perfect.
spiritprime
chojin998
It's not a good sign at all. It's the final chapter and it has a shorter runtime than the first two movies.
It's going to be disappointing way more than expected.
caldo15
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It's not a good sign at all. It's the final chapter and it has a shorter runtime than the first two movies.
It's going to be disappointing way more than expected.
Are you kidding with that statement? 14 minutes is going to make or break whether it's good or bad? please do not make anymore statements pertaining to this movie again, ridiculous. I think it's good that it's shorter, with 3D added people will not want to sit through a movie that was 2 1/2 hours long, that extra 15 minutes can be a killer, case in point, ROTF, Saw it with my wife and she complained how long and drawn out the last part of the movie was, if they trimmed the fat it could have been better, If they trimmed Leo the movie would have won an oscar! lol
chojin998
Quote:
Originally Posted by caldo15 View Post
Are you kidding with that statement? 14 minutes is going to make or break whether it's good or bad? please do not make anymore statements pertaining to this movie again, ridiculous. I think it's good that it's shorter, with 3D added people will not want to sit through a movie that was 2 1/2 hours long, that extra 15 minutes can be a killer, case in point, ROTF, Saw it with my wife and she complained how long and drawn out the last part of the movie was, if they trimmed the fat it could have been better, If they trimmed Leo the movie would have won an oscar! lol
Who are you to tell me what I can or can't say?
If you don't like what I write don't read it then.
It won't change the fact that a shorter runtime is a huge disappointment already and it means that the production knows that the movie is flawed otherwise being it the final chapter of a trilogy it should have been longer than the previous two, not shorter for sure.

Also that train wreck of Avatar was in the 160minutes range in useless 3D in theaters and only thanks to marketing people spent a lot of money to watch it multiple times (the best way to go blind).. so going around telling that people wouldn't watch a longer runtime 3D Transformers movie is a really moot point.
daformer
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen_revenge View Post
Mr.Nelson has revealed that the runtime for Dark Of The Moon will be 134 minutes which is 2 hours and 14 minutes! That's a long time to sit in the movie theater but hey with Popcorn, Drink, and your Cinemask and watching the greatest movie of the summer it won't seem like it was 2 hours long!
when did nelson confirm the running time? Didn't he just say it was over 2 hours?

EDIT - dont worry i found it - http://twitter.com/#!/S4TE
Chris McFeely
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It won't change the fact that a shorter runtime is a huge disappointment already and it means that the production knows that the movie is flawed otherwise being it the final chapter of a trilogy it should have been longer than the previous two, not shorter for sure.
Oh, don't talk such utter nonsense. Longer in absolutely no way means superior. LENGTH was always an issue with these movies - even in the fairly positively received first movie, critics said the final act lasted too long, and ROTF's final battle was a *joke* it lasted so long. Paring a solid quarter-hour off the running time hopefully means the story is tighter and focused. It's a smart move and I'm happy to see it.
einis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris McFeely View Post
Oh, don't talk such utter nonsense. Longer in absolutely no way means superior. LENGTH was always an issue with these movies - even in the fairly positively received first movie, critics said the final act lasted too long, and ROTF's final battle was a *joke* it lasted so long. Paring a solid quarter-hour off the running time hopefully the means the story is tighter and focused. It's a smart move and I'm happy to see it.

THIS
Liege Prime
This seems like a satisfying length to me. That's also what she said.
bad karma 99
Are the people who bring their cinemasks still gonna have to pay full 3d ticket admission price for the 3d movie ?
chojin998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris McFeely View Post
Oh, don't talk such utter nonsense. Longer in absolutely no way means superior. LENGTH was always an issue with these movies - even in the fairly positively received first movie, critics said the final act lasted too long, and ROTF's final battle was a *joke* it lasted so long. Paring a solid quarter-hour off the running time hopefully means the story is tighter and focused. It's a smart move and I'm happy to see it.
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
JazzSanti86
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
ITZ A CONSPIRACY I TELLZ YA!!!!!!!!

Seriously? Because people who've seen either the whole movie or parts of it and did end up liking it, automatically means their being paid? ok, maybe you and Harold Camping should continue working on when the end of the world is really gonna happen while the rest of us have fun at the movies
cypherXR
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It's not a good sign at all. It's the final chapter and it has a shorter runtime than the first two movies.
It's going to be disappointing way more than expected.
Your statement is illogical. What if those 15 minutes cut, were 15 minutes of bad toilet humor? I'm not understanding how you're equating the length of a movie to how good it will be.
JazzSanti86
but back on track, 134 min sounds good to me!
Shizuka
I thought TF had a decent run time and the time was used well. I'm sure many people felt the filler nature of from Jetfire's awakening to the final Battle. From what I've heard, no second is wasted.
caldo15
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
LOL How much do you guys wanna bet the next post this guy writes is "This movie is doomed because Megan Fox is not in it!"
Chris McFeely
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
Mudflap2011
As long as it's 2 hours or over I'm already happy
prime326
Awesome. That is a perfect length in my opinion.
springerbee
Well, sounds like half the movie is gonna be action so I won't complain
fallen_revenge
I mean it's the best movie of the series does it matter if it's 16 minutes shorter?
frenzyrumble
nice. i will have an erection for 134 minutes it appears.
Starscreamownz
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.


You dropped your hat, Mr. Camping.
[Wing_Saber-X]
Awesome! Can't wait to geek out at the premier!
Also, since this is the edited movie/cinema audience version, I'm sure that DVD release will have loads of unedited final scenes. :
ErbFan28
Nice. Thats a good running time. I just wanted it to be over 2 hours so this good with me
IaconStargazer
134 minutes is quite good for a runtime - shorter than each of the previous two, but not ridiculously so (re: the previous rumor of the film being 109 minutes long).
TylerMirage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liege Prime View Post
This seems like a satisfying length to me. That's also what she said.
Jolly good one, chap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenzy_rumble View Post
nice. i will have an erection for 134 minutes it appears.
Agreed. Better let the doctor know.

"My gosh! How long have you had this?!?!"
"It's alright, Doc. I was just at
DotM."
"Oh, alright then."
Bountyan
Yeah..every non-TF/casual TF fan I know that watched ROTF pretty much all complained it felt too long and drawn out. It might be a good thing this one is shorter. There were a crap load of scenes in ROTF that could have been deleted and the movie would be completely intact, maybe even better because it would cut some of the out of place humor. Anything over 2 hours is good for me.
420bot
So Bay really did listen, holy shit.
newmanium
Please don't eat popcorn near me!
bonycrushy345
well.. its better then the other time they said
Autovolt 127
The Runing time deserves one of these.
AutobotSkids
Well, they did have to cut all the twin's scenes out, so yeah, 134 sounds about right.
tobuttica
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
You are just going on hearsay. Have you seen the movie and can confirm that it's worse than ROTF with the 16 minutes cut out of it. Can you confirm that the final battle is an hour plus. What you are doing is jumping to conclusions and being trollish just to throw your "opinion" out there and elicit responses from people you are trying to upset.
RebelMan
TF = 2hrs 24mins
ROTF = 2hrs 30mins
DOTM = 2hrs 14mins


works for me
Mister Guy
Quote:
LOL How much do you guys wanna bet the next post this guy writes is "This movie is doomed because Megan Fox is not in it!"
Yep, in fact this guy reminds me of the troll that lurks on TFLAMB, who always says the movie is doomed because X reason (depending on what it is reported)

- Megan Fox isn't in DOTM, the movie is doomed because MB fired her.
- 3D, the movie is doomed because much time and budget is expend on it.
- The extra accident, the movie is doomed because of the lawsuit that will force them to cancel the production.
- MB gives and interview, the movie is doomed and MB is just trying to control the rumors by stating otherwise.
- The teaser, Daytona, etc. trailers... There are very few and too late, this means they haven't and won't finish the movie in time, the movie is doomed.

And now:
- Some good reviews from seen footage, the movie is doomed so MB is paying people to say they're very good.
- 15 min. less than previous movies, the movie is doomed because they won't be able to do much in the short span of 2 hours 14 minutes.

sivart
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.


I just joined this board to reply to your very stupid statement. To say a movie will be awful because they've cut 15 minutes off of an already 2 hour runtime would be like saying the movie will be better because Bay added even more solar flares; it's erroneous. Does a ridiculously long runtime constitute a great movie to you? Where in the study of film have they found that the 3rd installment of a trilogy absolutely has to have the longest runtime, otherwise it's doomed to failure?

As stated by another user on this thread, the last movie would have hugely benefited if they would have cut out 15 minutes of the fart-and-dick jokes (or the Twins), so there.

In conclusion, longer does not mean better; less is always more. People like direct and to the plot without all the extra irrelevant BS that detours from the story. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to kindly sit your ass down with your misguided comments.
Overlord Balder
We should just forget this Chojin guy ever spoke on this thread.
TylerMirage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord Balder View Post
We should just forget this Chojin guy ever spoke on this thread.
Gentlemen, I implore you! We must deprive said troll of its sustenance! [/Joseph Ducreux]
Ruthie
Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
Who are you to tell me what I can or can't say?
If you don't like what I write don't read it then.
It won't change the fact that a shorter runtime is a huge disappointment already and it means that the production knows that the movie is flawed otherwise being it the final chapter of a trilogy it should have been longer than the previous two, not shorter for sure.

Also that train wreck of Avatar was in the 160minutes range in useless 3D in theaters and only thanks to marketing people spent a lot of money to watch it multiple times (the best way to go blind).. so going around telling that people wouldn't watch a longer runtime 3D Transformers movie is a really moot point.
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chojin998 View Post
It has already been reported that the final battle on this 3rd movie lasts approx 1 hour non-stop. So what is your point?
What critics say doesn't matter, they are paid either by producers or competitors to write negative or positive stuff.
Bay and Paramount didn't care about them and the first two movies were a huge financial success despite competitors paying critics and invading forums to brainwash people minds with hatred to bring down the movie at any cost--they failed completely the second movie got an higher worldwide boxoffice gross than the first one and it sold tons of DVD/Blu-Ray discs more than the first movie. Just because many people all over the world chose the movies, they liked the movies.
Now that Paramount and Bay are paying critics to write good things about this 3rd movie shows that they are worried of having a lower quality product and so they go for the brainwashing people mind machine to sell it, which differs from clean marketing, it's dirty business.
Wha?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sivart View Post
I just joined this board to reply to your very stupid statement. To say a movie will be awful because they've cut 15 minutes off of an already 2 hour runtime would be like saying the movie will be better because Bay added even more solar flares; it's erroneous. Does a ridiculously long runtime constitute a great movie to you? Where in the study of film have they found that the 3rd installment of a trilogy absolutely has to have the longest runtime, otherwise it's doomed to failure?

As stated by another user on this thread, the last movie would have hugely benefited if they would have cut out 15 minutes of the fart-and-dick jokes (or the Twins), so there.

In conclusion, longer does not mean better; less is always more. People like direct and to the plot without all the extra irrelevant BS that detours from the story. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to kindly sit your ass down with your misguided comments.
Sivart, Sivart, Sivart. While your response is well-thought and eloquent, it is also unworthy given Chojin's comments. I humbly suggest, Grasshopper, that you learn from Master Chris McFeely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris McFeely View Post
JosephIor
All listen to chojin998, he's obviously the smartest person on the planet, and see the flaws where we don't.

*making "Vote for Chojin" flyers, t-shirts etc*

Continue: Transformers: Dark Of The Moon Running Time Finally Confirmed Discussion on the 2005 Boards!

 
Tempting Collectibles for Transformers and Godzilla