Tuesday
14Oct2008
J.J. Abrams: "'Star Trek' Will Be a Two Hour Movie"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:38PM 
Though a few of the longer summer blockbusters have been
redeeming, most movies over 150 minutes simply aren't well-edited. There's no
reason for a Pirates or a Spider-Man to approach three hours,
other than unchecked vanity. J.J. Abrams is taking that approach to heart, revealing to MTV that Star Trek won't be an all-day sucker.
"It will be a two hour movie. I'm sick of these two hours and forty-five minute movies," says the man who helped waste about six months of our time on season three of Lost. "Seriously, it's like, I don't have enough time to stay two hours and forty-five minutes. I'm exhausted just saying that twice. I can't stand it."
Good for him, and for us. That's not to say there isn't room for an epic now and then, but Pirates 3 doesn't need to be as long as The Godfather. Miracle at St. Anna would've felt long at half the running time. Directors should have a very compelling reason to go over two hours, and it's absolutely imperative that any two-and-a-half hour movie not have scenes you could immediately think you'd edit out yourself.
I'm a tad concerned about Watchmen for that reason, but I'm so hopeful about how faithful an interpretation it will be that I'm not overly bothered by its rumored running time. Yet.
But Star Trek being two hours? Sounds like just long enough to finish a bucket of popcorn, which is exactly what I want from J.J. Abrams. The Enterprise sets its new course on May 8th.
Reader Comments (5)
J J has a point. Films are too long these days.
It's not difficult for a good director to make a fulfilling film under 2 hours.
It just requires som choices and less self-indulgance with the material.
Some films of a particular vision have to be longer but those films are very rare indeed.
How long was sin city? all I remember about run time in that movie was it felt like they didn't waste a god dam second, they just went and went and wondered why more movies had so much filler. Not like they get paid by the minute.
Good films are never "too long."
Good films are never "too long.",
Is that to say that good films are not long
or is it to say that no matter the actual length of the film, as long as it is good it can continue on?
Six weeks of our time were wasted on season three of Lost. It boggles the mind that anyone could think to say that episode 7 onwards didn't cover more story than season two did.
Good runtime for a Trek film, I think.