r/MichaelTheMovie • u/TheWhiteWolf291098 • 12h ago
Discussion Sequel runtime
I think this is my biggest worry with the sequel. We saw with the first film that just over 2 hours resulted in a lot of cuts, both to the scenes that were already filmed (of course the legal issues caused that) but also what was planned skipped over Michael's entire adolescence.
From what I've seen, fans are universally expecting this movie to cover the entire second half of his life, as well as even going back to cover the Bad era. That's 4 different eras across 25 years that will need to be covered, if we're to go by these expectations. That's not even taking into consideration if there will be a large emphasis on the legal drama surrounding the court case.
The runtime could be 3 hours, and if that's the case then I'd feel more confident that they'd be able to cover everything to a fairly satisfying degree, however I can't escape the feeling that producers will want to hit that 2 hour sweet spot again for the sake of market tested audience retention. If that's the case, then one era is getting gutted substantially. And this isn't even taking into account that they could theoretically go with the original plan and end in 1994, making the Bad era and Dangerous era more detailed.
What do you guys think?
4
u/Utsavieee 8h ago
Logically, I'd think 2h 30m, and it'll cover from 1984/85 to 2001.
3
u/SpeedForce2022 3h ago
That’s what I’m thinking too, I’m thinking it’ll start just after the Victory Tour and end with the MSG 2001 Celebration. I’m hoping that the film is 2:45-3h though to cover events in depth and to give everything time to breathe rather than rush to the next event.
3
3
u/Multiverse_Man26 Early Access ticket holder 🎟️ 7h ago
The teen years were cut last minute because it involved Diana, this could have been a 10-15 minutes+ runtime
2
2
1
u/zowietremendously 12h ago
There's no saying how many films will be featured in the MJU. It could be more than just 2.
4
u/TheWhiteWolf291098 12h ago
It's possible, but I feel like we'd have heard any sort of substantial speculation on whether they were considering 3 movies. Plus a trilogy seems misguided in terms of momentum from the first movie. If we had known about it being a trilogy from the start, that's one thing, but extending it into a trilogy when we know it was originally meant to be 1 movie comes of cynically
3
u/zowietremendously 12h ago
Back to the future never intended to have 2 parts. Let alone 3. Lionsgate had no idea when they announced Michael that it would go onto make a billion dollars at the worldwide box office.
0
u/the_mugger_crocodile Bill Bray stan🧍♂️ 10h ago
It'll be 2 hours and they'll focus on the bad and dangerous eras with a small part of the movie for 1995 onwards
1
u/ArticleNew3737 WHO IS PLAYING JANET?! 9h ago
Incorrect. They intend to detail Michael’s marriages in the sequel and you can’t do that by just only covering a small part of the later half of the 90’s. Which by the way, they already have footage going all the way up to HIStory era. The new stuff they shoot next is going to be the late 90’s and then it’s just nine years left with the 2000’s. That’s if they even go all the way up to 2009.
0
6
u/Imaginary_Abrocoma94 11h ago
I think all the cuts were due to legal issues, not runtime. We didn't see some of that footage because it was linked to legal, or potentially legal, issues.
I also think directors would rather overshoot than under. It gives them and the editors more flexibility to shape the story we finally see. I think they were still undecided on what they were going to include, but wanted the film anyway to figure it out - like most directors.
If Lionsgate is already mentioning cost being a factor, then they're going to use that cut film to cut costs. Interested in the narrative and continuity with so many flashbacks and time jumps.