The RUNNING time is the most ALARMING thing about the new movie.

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

I could not believe when I read last week that Abrahams and crew are only producing a 2 hour movie and outright disparages 3 hour running times.

Let's break it down this way...

This is the most important Trek movie since 1979. It's your chance to relaunch a flagging franchise and the crown jewel of PARAMOUNT PICTURES...

You need to make this movie bigger than life-epic! Think how much more of a groundwork you could lie for a continuing movie series if you launch with a three hour pic...or at least two and a half hours!

This is a big mistake...and I don't buy the argument some may make about less screens to play on with a longer running time....that didn't stop TITANIC...and if its a good movie...they will come!

 

[SonicRanger]

If J.J. doesn't feel he could make a great 3-hour movie, then he shouldn't. Be glad we're not getting another Insurrection (103 min) or TSFS (105 min) or TFF (107 min).

 

[Arlo]

Ok, how about the argument that quality is more important than quantity?

 

[Jon1701]

This is a ridiculous statement.

The movie should be as long as it needs to be. Abrams wants two hours + credits. That is more than enough time. Its still going to be the longest Trek movie.

Two and a half hours is a long time to sit in a movie theatre. Three hours is plain crazy. Kids are going to see this movie.

You can only stop them from chucking the popcorn around for so long.

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

Two hours is just fine. Getting the average Joe to see Star Trek is hard enough already, you don't need to scare them away with a three hour runtime.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Star Wars" introduced a whole new skiffy universe on film and massively changed the movie business in fundamental ways - and had a running time of about two hours.

Not to worry.

 

[Saul]

3 Hours of Star Trek will put non fans off.
Keep it for the DVD 4 disc set.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Get in. Get out. Make a tight, action-packed film with a good story and a good message.

Most three hour movies are too long and bloated.

90 minutes used to be perfect, if it was tightly edited story. But nowadays, two hours is the new 90 minutes.

 

[Warp Coil]

I think a full, solid, well-paced 2 hours can be just fine. Movies don't have to be 2.5-3 hours to be considered epic. There are some films that are just too long. There are others that feel a bit rushed and short, and could have used an extra 10-20 minutes added in. I think 2 hours is just about perfect.

 

[M'Sharak]

I could not believe when I read last week that Abrahams and crew are only producing a 2 hour movie and outright disparages 3 hour running times.

Let's break it down this way...

<snip>

How about this way: On average, the runtime of a Star Trek movie has been slightly less than 120 minutes. If Abrams & Co. want to make a movie which fits squarely in that notch or even a little on the high side of average, I'm not sure I see the problem. All that counts is that the movie be just long enough to tell the story it has to tell, and no longer.

 

[Jon1701]

You know, I'm fairly certain I feel asleep in at least one, if not two of the LOTR movies. Nothing to do with my attention span, they were just so f*cking long (and I'd been at work all day!)



I watched them all the way through since however (in one sitting actually... )

 

[Aragorn]

If it's a good movie they will come? Yeah, good movies NEVER get ignored at the box office.

So you want them to pull a Pearl Harbor and stretch out a two-hour movie into three?

Some people on this board....

 

[M'Sharak]

You know, I'm fairly certain I feel asleep in at least one, if not two of the LOTR movies. Nothing to do with my attention span, they were just so f*cking long (and I'd been at work all day!)

My problem with the first one was not staying awake; it was the large soda I bought before going into the theater.

Small sodas for the second and third installments.

 

[Sector 7]

The OP has a right to his opinion. I just don't share it. Hell, I fell asleep during TMP the 2nd and 3rd times I saw it. Waaaaay toooooo looooooong going through V'ger. (People tell me it wasn't that long, my brain says different and goes into sleep mode...)
Epic, money-making movies are usually less than two hours in length. I want this movie to be epic and money-making; so much money that Paramount will have to make another one or two or...

 

[Therin of Andor]

I found that turning 40 put me in a whole new demographic: people who nod off during movies. I started to find that I'd "bliss out" in some movies (cavorting humpbacks in "Fantasia 2000", waving jellyfish tentacles in "Finding Nemo", or endless flying-arrow battle sequences in things like "The Mummy" films and LoTR).

I've never fallen asleep in a ST movie, and I'm hoping this one will be impossible for anyone to sleep through.

A movie is usually as long as the script needs to be. The problem with some DE DVDs is that the pacing can be thrown off in a bid to "restore" footage.

 

[cultcross]

You know, I'm fairly certain I feel asleep in at least one, if not two of the LOTR movies. Nothing to do with my attention span, they were just so f*cking long (and I'd been at work all day!)

My problem with the first one was not staying awake; it was the large soda I bought before going into the theater.

Small sodas for the second and third installments.

Amen to that. I was sitting in the third one, or The One With About Four Endings, thinking 'that's gotta be it! no... That's gotta be it! no...' bursting for the bathroom.


I think its a decent running length for Star Trek. Long movies can scare away kids or people who really aren't sure they'll like it.
And tbh if JJ doesn't want a 3 hr movie to tell his story in, so be it. The movie should be as long as the story. His story is finished and filmed now, its not as if he set a draconian time limit on day one and filmed to fit it.

 

[seigezunt]

It should be as long as the story needs it to be.

I have to agree with Abrams on this one, and would add that way too many new movies could stand some editing. They meander way too much, and lose momentum with padding.

Making it longer would not necessarily give us more to love about it.

And there's always the "extra scenes" for the dvd, I guess...

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The length of a movie should depend only on the story it is telling.

Unlike television, a film's length is something that can vary.

If the story takes 2 hours to tell, then it takes 2 hours to tell.

No adding length with extraneous scenes to confuse or bore an audience, and no over cutting of the movie to accomodate a shorter run length, which could confuse the audience and sacrifice key story points or ideas.

Also, 2 hours is a good running time commercially, because it allows more showings on less screens that 3 hours, which translates to more revenue.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I'm sure it's not too late for them to add shots of the bridge crew giving long, lingering looks at something blue on the viewscreen -- with an occasional booming, twangy "BONG!" sound effect to up the tension. That could easily turn a 2 hour movie into a 3 hour movie. Let's do it!

 

[The Wormhole]

Actually, two-hour running time is the one thing I actually agree with Abrams on.

I won't deny that there are some two and a half hour (or longer) movies I enjoy, but they don't have much rewatch value, because that's a long time to spend watching a movie. Two hours is fine indeed.