Speculation 2 Hours or 3 Hours?

I am guessing about 2:20.....then offer extended versions on blu ray for us who can't get enough just like LOTR.....if I really like a movie I want to see as much as possible! I could watch a 6 hour version of "Return of the King"

 

Exactly what I was thinking. The ST needs to be, at heart, a fun adventure. If there's a need for any of the movies to go longer than 140 minutes, something is amiss.

 

2 please. The only thing I dont like about LOTR is that they are too long.....

 

I agree that the PT could have been fleshed out a little more but I don't think Disney will nor should go in saying we want to make a 3 hour tour, a 3 hour tour. They should just make the best film possible even it it means only 100 minutes. Likely though the movie will be typically SW with ample action and clock in around 130 minutes.

 

I think it should be 3 hours long, please! 4.5 hrs for the blu-ray and 5.5 hrs for the re-release special edition and 7 hrs for the special edition director's cut blu-ray. So, I hope we start off as 3 hours!

 

2.5 hours max.

 

Anything longer than 2 hours needs an intermission for a bladder break. At least in AOTC after I saw it the first time I knew I could use the fireplace scene to hit the restroom so I was all set for the arena action..

 

2h but intense please 3h movies mostly looses their dynamic

 

Hmmmm, do I want to see a 2 hour Star Wars movie or a 3 hour Starr Wars movie?????????????

 

Ah, but sometimes less is more...

 

It's rare that any film needs to be much longer than 2 hours (I hate this trend so much - it often just leads to lazy story-telling - although there are obvious exceptions), and we certainly don't need a new SW film to come in at around 3 hours. The Prequels didn't need to be longer, they needed to be told better.

 

I agree, but I personally think the PT should have started with Attack of the Clones. Then they could have spread RotS over two parts. TPM could have been filled in with a few scenes of dialogue in AotC. There really was little purpose to film except to show Anakin as a boy.

However back to the question at hand, 2 hrs 20 seems about right to me. I love the LOTR series but watching one has always seemed like a bit of a chore to me. I have to really want to watch one.

 

WHAT? And miss all that great dialogue???

 

It was either that or a catnap...

 

How about a 24 hour Star Wars movie (I want 2 and a half).

 

showing anakin's separation from his mother was essential to the story. episode 1 needed to happen..... (especially since it was my favorite SW film ;D)

 

The length of each of the films in the OT is perfect. The length of TPM and AOTC is also good. Neither feels too long or too short. The only Star Wars film that does feel rushed, at least to me, is ROTS. I love ROTS, but I admit that Lucas had to fit an awful lot into the film. To his credit he does manage to fit it all in, but it could have done with some more time to breathe, I feel. I personally think ROTS needed about an extra fifteen to twenty minutes. I actually think people expected it to be the longest of the Star Wars films, for obviouse reasons.

 

I completely agree with this.

I don't think the ST will be as political or as complex but I could be wrong. I think anything over 2 1/2 hours is pushing the balance between story and action.

 

All through production of the prequels, people wanted longer movies and worried there would be enough time to tell the story, whatever that story was. We were impatient for anything that appeared to stray from the story arc we expected of seeing Anakin turn to Vader, and seeing the Republic become the Empire, and seeing whatever planets and characters we wanted to see. All this as we desired loads of STAR WARSiness to make up for the three year wait between films. At the same time, other epics were coming out like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings that showed audiences, young ones at that, can sit in theaters for three hours and push a movie over $300 million at the box office. Conventional wisdom by 1999 had shown otherwise. The Prequels kind of had the misfortune of being at the forefront of the 21st century string of sci-fi/fantasy epic movies. Things would have been different had TPM started a few years later.
However, the prequels showed a longer movie isn't a better movie. While I think the Prequel Trilogy could have benefited from a more epic approach considering the complex subject matter of love and the war and different sides, I don't think they should have been longer because that just would have meant longer action sequences which were already too long or anticlimactic for what they were. (Count the number of times in ROTS that we see a ship's complete landing cycle.) A story structured a certain way can be told in three hours or it can be told in an hour and forty-five minutes, or in the case of something like "Dumbo", less than 100 minutes.

 

At least 120-140 minutes.

 

I was bored with Avatar after awhile. I was like.. "hmm have I checked imugr lately?"

 

I'd rather they shoot a bunch of extra stuff for a DVD cut, but keep the film short for the general audience's sake.

 

I'd like it to last from 120 to 130 mins aprox. 150 mins or more could get boring. A movie to last that long has to be a very good movie to justify it. Critics usually don't like long movies if they don't justify it by a very rich plot, etc. It's like being presumptuous

 

Having sat through "Django" (awesome) and "The Hobbit" (meh) I definitely say: 120 minutes please! Movies are far too long these days. Unless the film has something to say, excessive length is no more than indulgence. The hardest SW movie for me to sit through is AOTC, which is also the longest.