ST Runtime for VII

With such a big cast is there any possibility that the runtime for this film will approach two hours and thirty minutes (150 minutes)? How long do you expect the runtime to be? What's your limit on how long you think it should go? And in the future could a three hour SW film be accepted ala Lord of the Rings?

 

I would like a well-paced 3 hours. We have some catching up to do over the last 30 years.

 

With the amount of characters in this film, I wouldn't mind a 2.5-hr Episode VII, or maybe even a little longer, if it meant doing all of the characters justice.

 

it should only show enough to make you begging for more like a tauntaun in heat....i would prefer the traditional 1.5 to 1.75 hrs. Save the directors cut for the 4th release on unspecified futuristic formats. The way they have been doing these "special" releases just convince me never to buy anything out of the shoot unless it came with a lukes hand replica or something like that.
After dances with wolves...i vowed never to spend that much time in a theater. a drive in - yes...a walk in...no. I like the 90 minute format of a good well done film but ive seen films at 2hrs and 10 minutes with exceptional pacing and being surprised the movie was over already.
Hopefully ep 7 will be like that.

 

It will set a record for longest movie ever made with a run time of 24 hours and 15 minutes not including 2 meal breaks and 3 intermissions.

 

JJ has stated many times in the past that he doesn't like overly long movies. I'd expect Episode VII's runtime to be similar to that of his two STAR TREK films... right around 2 hours 15 minutes. Also, I wouldn't worry about the film suffering because of the large cast. Chances are that outside of the returning characters and the new trio, many of them will only appear briefly.

 

I wouldn't mind it being about 2 and a half hours, three hours wouldn't hurt though.

 

As long as it's well paced, I could easily do three hours if it comes to it.

 

"The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
- Alfred Hitchcock

 

I'll would love 2h 30 mins+ Star Wars movie but I think it will be between 2h and 2h:15m

 

Most likely no longer than 2 hours 15 minutes (I'd say 2:10).

 

I predict that it will be about 2hr15min.

However, for a Star Wars film I prefer the 2hr run time. I'm not against longer films at all and really enjoy Godfather II, It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and The Ten Commandments. For me the last four Star Wars have been increasingly bloated and need at least a good 10-15 mins edited out.

 

Is it me or is this quite a long shoot? Even with the enforced lay up they're still going to shoot everything they intended I assume, even if they find themselves doing pick-ups some time next year.

I would love the movie to be around 2½ hours long and a Special Edition of around 3 hours, but that's probably wishful thinking...

 

A movie doesn't need to be long to work, even an epic one. That's one thing I liked about the 2009 Star Trek. In a time of excessively long action adventure epics, it was a good old-fashioned two hours. Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back were just about at two hours, with Return of the Jedi a little longer. It's all about pacing and not overdoing it. What comes with length? A podrace that's too long. Seeing every ship go through the landing cycle. Spending way too long in the droid factory. King Kong spending forever at the top of the Empire State Building.

 

My bladder will endure. I will pee in a cup in the middle of the theater, if I have to!!!

With that said, I would be fine with a 3 hr film. The more Wars, the better!

 

Star Wars films have tended to be around the two hour mark, which is generally the accepted run time of mainstream cinema, outside of the kids market. When films like this try to turn themselves into mini-epics by doing the three hour thing, they tend to get extremely baggy and you can start to feel the gears of the story grinding as you move slowly towards the finish line. One of the biggest most recent offenders of this is Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, the first instalment of which took over an hour to get the adventure moving out of Bilbo's front door. These films work best when they maintain a tight pace, with short scenes that move the plot along nicely. To me, Empire Strikes Back has the best drama and characterization in the series, but it's scenes still manage to keep an incredibly snippy pace without ever feeling rushed.

There are very few films that can justify a three hour run time, no matter how much people keep trying to do it. Especially recently, there seems to be this trend of directors thinking they are David Lean. Wolf of Wall Street, tells you everything you need to know about the excess of the characters it shows you about one hour and thirty minutes in, but then Scorcese proceeds to continue pushing that one point for another hour before heading to the finish line. Same with Django Unchained, you just get to a point where you go 'okay... I get it, now finish the story.' But Tarantino drags out the proceedings to polish his auteur director ego. Films should only have epic running times, if they are telling truly epic stories with larger than life characters. Lawrence of Arabia works because it just has that much story and drama to get through and because Lawrence himself is an incredibly complex character. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly works because Leone knew how to slow down time in a way that made his pulp b-movies somehow seem like operas, he was a genius.

 

I cannot help but feel that there is a case for a slightly longer than usual SW movie for VII:

We have fast-forwarded 30 years; a lot will have happened in that time, more than an opening crawl could cover methinks, some of it will need to be expounded or at least touched on in the movie itself, though I do acknowledge that some information/surprises should be held back for the other two movies.

We are getting a new trio of actors who need introducing and who need some character development; all the usual 'new crisis' and new Big Bad stuff needs to be developed; but then on top of that we also have our original trio who may have been up to quite a bit since we last saw them. That in itself is an extra bit on top of the usual themes so to speak, especially since I think we'll be getting rather more than cameos from Mark, Carrie and Harrison. I think a cinematic run time of 2½ hours is not beyond reason, then we could revert to more typical running times in the remaining two movies.

I'm pretty sure we won't get this, but I think it's doable.

 

My motto is a good movie is never too long, a bad film is never short enough. It doesn't always perfectly work out like that (I agree with the above comment that Django and that final Lord of the Rings film went on forever), but for the most part this rule of law has worked out for me.

 

Want it to be 2.45 but guessing 2.30 as it do have a large cast that need some time on screen.

 

As long as it takes to create coherent, satisfying story. I don't want any filler.

 

With JJ at the helm, the film will be as long as it needs to be. However, I really don't think the runtime for Episode VII will be all that different from Episodes I-VI. If the film clocks in at any longer than 2 hours 20 minutes, I will be extremely shocked. As I said earlier, JJ has gone on record stating that he doesn't like films that are unnecessarily long. As for the multitude of characters and the assumption that the film needs to be longer to accommodate them... I think people are making a mistake in assuming that all of these actors and actresses will have HUGE/GIGANTIC roles in the Film. Many of these characters will likely only be onscreen for a very short time. Some of them, even some of the bigger names, will probably only get one or two scenes(and not very big scenes at that). Some of them might only be glorified cameos. And then, there's still the possibility that some of them might have their scenes cut altogether when the film is being edited. You gotta remember, this is STAR WARS... there are quite a few high profile actors and actresses who would be more than happy to take bit parts just to be in the film.

 

My thinking is 2 hours and 15 minutes. No more then 30 minutes. If its any longer we run the risk of audiences and critics complaining its to long, we need to remember that while we could send 4 hours in the movie and be happy casual movie goers wont be.

 

Around 150 minutes at least.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it impossible for a film shot in IMAX to be longer than 2 hours 30 minutes? That's why they had to cut scenes from Attack of the Clones and Watchmen.