'Avatar' Running Time: 150 Minutes

I am of the opinion that, more often than not, people don't want to see movies that are over two hours long. Most films aren't, and that's why: Audiences are used to sitting in theaters for 90 minutes or 100 minutes, a little over two hours with trailers, and that's what they're comfortable with. Some movies have to be longer because of their stories, but do we need a Pirates of the Caribbean that's as long as The Godfather? No, we don't. James Cameron's last film was one of those that could make the case that it needed to be three hours long; however, if you watch it now, you know the first 90 minutes is incredibly hard to warm up to. So with Avatar receiving special dispensation all around - the budget, the production window, complete autonomy from the director - you had to think Cameron might flirt with 180 minutes or 200 minutes again. But no. It's still long - 150 minutes, according to The Hollywood Reporter, but given that Cameron is taking us to another world, that might be a little shorter than most people anticipated. The primary reason for the two-and-a-half hour running time versus three hours is almost certainly the full immersion into 3-D for that length of time and the expense of making a film in Cameron's very specific, never-before-seen version of that technology. In other words, it costs enough as it is. Plus, Cameron's a shrewd enough guy to know he's going to need a big box office performance to validate his rather extreme measures here, so the shorter the better. It's not a situation like Lord of the Rings where fans have to be appeased by including this or that, and a slimmer run time might get him just enough additional showings over a three-hour version to buoy the box office a bit more. I've never followed the logic that because Titanic made $600 million, that makes Avatar an instant hit. So taking steps to streamline it a little bit are definitely in order. Avatar opens on December 18th.

Comments

[El Doucheo Bago]

I definitely want the movies I am seeing to be over two hours. Unless its just some stupid comedy or something. It pisses me off when a movie is only 90 min.

[Orinn]

2 hours is a good run time, you go over you better justify it.
Your under, well then you better have a complete story.
Under 2 hours is less bad then over.

[anybody]

To be honest this actually seems rather short for this flick so I'm more than fine with it... I agree that two hours is probably the best average time for a film, give or take a tenner. For an epic like this though I wouldn't have been surprised to see it push three so this is a (nice?) surprise. After all, not to sound like a wanker, time is relative so the 150 for Basterds flew by while the 165 for Ben Button certainly dragged in the second half (a film that suffered from a more engaging first half than second which is a big no-no).

[Brandon]

Perfect run time for a movie with a good story line: 2 to 2 1/2 hours. Indeed I hate paying for movies that seemed rushed or lacking. Now if the story is good and fully covered in less than 2 hours and its complete then exceptions can be made. There are very few good movies that are anywhere from 80 to 105 minutes in length. Toy Story is one that comes to mind that is excellent, you may argue the first X-men movie is good, but I was very dissappointed and thought it could have had an extra 20 minutes or more added to it.

[El Doucheo Bago]

X-Men 3 being only an hour and 44min was bullshit. Adding another half to an hour to space things out and get more character development might have made it less shitty. FOX loves making everything 90-100 mins to cram as many show times in a day, along with wanting to make everything pg-13 but thats another story. I hate FOX so much. I am still trying to hold out hope for Predators but I will probably be disappointed again.

[SEAN]

Yea I agree with some people above... 2 - 2.5 hrs is a good time limit for me at least... I mean I want a well rounded story with an arc that is complete for the story as well as the characters...

Definitly agree with anybody..... Basterds flew by and I loved it while Ben Button did drag but I still liked it but I actually did start feeling my butt in the seat, and it was packed when I saw that film, I noticed others do the same

Avatar seems good for 150 and I mean the cost is probably the only thing that Cameron kept the film at 150 at it is...

[Get The Big Picture]

Two-and-a-half is fine for some movies, not Transformers, really, but that's not where the argument begins with that film. I agree with the Benjamin Button post: Stretching these stories past the point of their effectiveness - true of the majority of current three-hour movies - really works against you.

Titanic, the way it was structured, earned the three-hour length, because you want to do the boat sinking in real time, or close to it. Unfortunately, the first 90 minutes isn't nearly as compelling. The Lord of the Rings movies went on much longer than they needed to, especially because they were developed as a trilogy. In ten hours, you can't find 40, 45 minutes somewhere you can cut out?

But someone else made the point that you can make a movie that's too short. True, but I'd prefer that six or seven times out of ten rather than a Judd Apatow movie going 15 to 20 minutes longer than it should.

[El Doucheo Bago]

Yeah, Funny People was way too long.