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

[Jon1701]

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!

I like this idea.

I think this movie needs as many special effects as possible, even at the expense of the character moments.

Over-long special fx shots. That's what we need.

Lets just pad this fucker out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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!

Don't knock bongs. Frequent recourse to the bong made TMP quite enjoyable in 1979.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Frequent recourse to the bong made TMP quite enjoyable in 1979.

I can think of no other way...

 

[shapeshifter]

2:10, 2:15 minutes might have made it feel a little more "epic" but as long as the story is fully told then 2 hours is ok by me.

 

[blockaderunner]

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!

Dude, chill. There was a little film called Star Wars that, while just slightly over the two hour mark, credits included, was pretty epic and larger than life. When it comes to movies, I'll always choose quality over quantity. And to go back to your TMP example, there was a reason why, in hindsight, it's jokingly refered to as The MOTIONLESS Picture (I prefer 2001: a Trek Oddessy) . Better to have a rich, accessible, two hour adventure than a slow, pompous, self absorbed, three hour snoozefest.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

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!

This is the best news I've heard yet. The last thing we need is an over-long escapist movie thinking it needs the running time of GoodFellas to tell a story that will, even if highly entertaining, add up to much ado about nothing.

 

[Mike Farley]

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!

I like this idea.

I think this movie needs as many special effects as possible, even at the expense of the character moments.

Over-long special fx shots. That's what we need.

Lets just pad this fucker out.

They should also add on three or four extra endings, including a pillow-fight. That'll give the slash fiction guys something to work with.

Seriously though, STII:TWOK, often considered the best of the Trek films, clocks in at 1hr53min. It's the content of the film, not how long it takes to watch it.

 

[webb3201]

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!

silly complaint that makes no sense at all. You write the best story you can, not write to fill a certain block of time. Brevity is the Soul of Wit!

 

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

Surprising reactions...

I would have thought most fans would be behind a three hour movie as we have to wait so many years between movies that you would think the producers would want to take the opportunity to turn it into an extravaganza.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Well, it's good to see that silly things to whine about Trek XI never end...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I would have thought most fans would be behind a three hour movie...

At my age, my behind cannot get behind a three hour movie.

 

[Woulfe]

I can do 2 hours.

I'm getting a bit old to sit through 2.5 -3 hour films.

Attention span has nothing to do with it, it's age.

I find I have to take naps to get through the day.

Let's face it we're not getting any younger here

- W -
* Old Fart *

 

[trekkerguy]

Surprising reactions...

I would have thought most fans would be behind a three hour movie as we have to wait so many years between movies that you would think the producers would want to take the opportunity to turn it into an extravaganza.

I would love a three hour Trek movie to watch. Some of my favorite
movies are really long(2001, Peter Jacksons King Kong, The Dark Knight)
but for this movie it just doesn't make sense so I'm going with J.J.

Two hours is about normal for a Trek movie anyways so this should fit rght in.

 

[Ovation]

The movie should be as long as is necessary--no more, no less. If it takes 2 hours to tell the story well, then that's what it should be. If 3 hours are needed, then great. If 90 minutes, also great.

What is NOT desirable is for the STUDIO to dictate the running time, either forcing too many cuts or, less frequently, extra "padding". Let the filmmakers tell their story in the time span they judge appropriate. I would rather see a well made 2 hour movie than a mediocre 3 hour movie that is long merely for the sake of being long.

 

[phoenix96]

Epic, money-making movies are usually less than two hours in length.

Let's take a look at the top 15 grossing films worldwide:

1. Titanic - 3hrs 14min
2. LOTR: Return of the King - 3hrs 20min
3. POTC: Dead Man's Chest - 2hrs 31min
4. The Dark Knight - 2hrs 30min
5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - 2hrs 33min
6. POTC: At World's End - 2hrs 48min
7. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 2hrs 19min
8. LOTR: The Two Towers - 2hrs 59min
9. Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace - 2hrs 13min
10. Shrek 2 - 1hrs 33min
11. Jurassic Park - 2hrs 7min
12. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 2hrs 33min
13. Spider-Man 3 - 2hrs 20min
14. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 2hrs 41min
15. LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2hrs 58min

Note that the only movie in that list under 2 hours was the animated Shrek 2?

 

[richpit]

They need to save some footage for the three-disc Director's cut DVD, don't they?

"with 40 hours of unreleased footage...longer than most peoples' work week!"

 

[FalTorPan]

The movie must be exactly 2 hours, 9 minutes in length. Anything else and I'm boycotting!!!

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I would have thought most fans would be behind a three hour movie...

At my age, my behind cannot get behind a three hour movie.

After a "small" movie theater soda, my bladder can't get behind a three-hour movie.