Give Or Take 5000 Years - The Length Of Thor: Ragnarok

[The_Manhunter]

Thought this would be a decent discussion topic. I think TDW, as much as I like it, was cut too short. I'm hoping for a much longer movie for Ragnarok in the vein of LOTR, anyone else hoping for the same?

 

[Fosterson]

2 to 2.5 hours should do nicely. Anything longer than that would just be too much IMO.

 

[warriorking]

Anything under 2hrs 10 minutes would be a disservice to Thor....

 

[Lilbaz]

Make the best film possible. The length doesn't matter if they do that.

 

[Fosterson]

Anything under 2hrs 10 minutes would be a disservice to Thor....

Well, GOTG was two hours exactly and wasn't any lesser a film because of it.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

It all depends on the story you are trying to tell. Give enough time to tell the story and do not leave out character development. A few key moments added throughout the film can make a world of difference. For me the scene between Thor and Loki on the skiff in Svartalfheim and the scene with Natasha and Steve in the car ride were some of those moments.

However, a character like Thor also needs some major spectacle so you need time for that. We've yet to see him really cut loose with his power or witness all the wonders that the Nine Realms can show us. If this is Thor's swan song then make it count.

 

[divan]

I'd say this seems to be covering way too much for a "short" movie. Just counting left-hanging plot-threads from other movies and you've got Loki's usurping the throne, the Infinity Stones and Thor's vision from AOU. Then add the titular Ragnarok (which, if looks remotely similar to the myth or even the comic book stories is a pretty epic event in itself with a lot of players from Asgard and other realms).

And that's assuming other potential players (like Jane, Selvig or Thanos) do not appear, at least directly.

So yeah, I'm not going to say I want a long movie for the sake of it being long, but this looks in terms of characters, scale and importance (it's the Twillight of the Gods after all or, at least, that's what they're selling us) even bigger than what The Dark World attempted to be (and I say attempted because that movie was butchered in the editing room).

 

[Avenger]

I hope this will be the first Thor movie to at least reach two hours. The first two were too short, particularly TDW.

 

[Fosterson]

I'd say this seems to be covering way too much for a "short" movie. Just counting left-hanging plot-threads from other movies and you've got Loki's usurping the throne, the Infinity Stones and Thor's vision from AOU. Then add the titular Ragnarok (which, if looks remotely similar to the myth or even the comic book stories is a pretty epic event in itself with a lot of players from Asgard and other realms).

And that's assuming other potential players (like Jane, Selvig or Thanos) do not appear, at least directly.

So yeah, I'm not going to say I want a long movie for the sake of it being long, but this looks in terms of characters, scale and importance (it's the Twillight of the Gods after all or, at least, that's what they're selling us) even bigger than what The Dark World attempted to be (and I say attempted because that movie was butchered in the editing room).

Agreed. I think that out of all the movies in Phase 3, Civil War and Ragnarok are the ones most likely to suffer from overcrowding. I hope Marvel realise this and act accordingly!

 

[Havok83]

I hope its not too long. I never thought the Thor films were all that exciting. The sequel was definitely better than the first, which seemed to drag on a bit with not as much action and special effects. They should definitely keep it under 2 hours. 2.5 hours? Yikes. I don't think Thor warrants that and could be detrimental to the film

 

[warriorking]

Make it just over 2 hours...The additional time can go a long way in the Thor films...
Give Thor his due....He earned it...

 

[Dark Raven]

If it's 5000 years, I'm never going to get through this movie.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

2 hours, 24 minutes, 47 seconds. plus credits. without knowledge of script or story, that's the best assumption I can come up with.


also, I hate movies don't take their time nowadays. if people sat through Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia without problems, they can sit through 5 hour epics today too. There's no need pandering to the MTV generation with their short attention spans. related: give a scene time to breath, FFS. you don't have to have mindless action scenes every two movie because a film would 'drag' according to some people around here. Leave that %&§$ to the Transformes/Fast&Furious crowd and give me a real movie instead.

But make it fun.

 

[Dark Raven]

2 hours, 24 minutes, 47 seconds. plus credits. without knowledge of script or story, that's the best assumption I can come up with.


also, I hate movies don't take their time nowadays. if people sat through Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia without problems, they can sit through 5 hour epics today too. There's no need pandering to the MTV generation with their short attention spans. related: give a scene time to breath, FFS. you don't have to have mindless action scenes every two movie because a film would 'drag' according to some people around here. Leave that %&§$ to the Transformes/Fast&Furious crowd and give me a real movie instead.

But make it fun.

I'm pretty sure some of these epics were split into two parts of two hours or less each. They should at least allow for a toilet break for something as long as Gone with the Wind.

 

[Havok83]

2 hours, 24 minutes, 47 seconds. plus credits. without knowledge of script or story, that's the best assumption I can come up with.


also, I hate movies don't take their time nowadays. if people sat through Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia without problems, they can sit through 5 hour epics today too. There's no need pandering to the MTV generation with their shor t attention spans. related: give a scene time to breath, FFS. you don't have to have mindless action scenes every two movie because a film would 'drag' according to some people around here. Leave that %&§$ to the Transformes/Fast&Furious crowd and give me a real movie instead

But make it fun.

5 hours? Please tell me you are joking? Not only do the studios not have the budget for that, that length is completely unnecessary and I dont see how that would benefit any of these films. Who really wants to go to the movies and sit around for 5 hours? People are busy with things to do. Thats more than half a work day

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I'm pretty sure some of these epics were split into two parts of two hours or less each. They should at least allow for a toilet break for something as long as Gone with the Wind.

there were intermissions, yes. I miss those films

 

[djsunyc]

2 hours, 24 minutes, 47 seconds. plus credits. without knowledge of script or story, that's the best assumption I can come up with.


also, I hate movies don't take their time nowadays. if people sat through Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia without problems, they can sit through 5 hour epics today too. There's no need pandering to the MTV generation with their short attention spans. related: give a scene time to breath, FFS. you don't have to have mindless action scenes every two movie because a film would 'drag' according to some people around here. Leave that %&§$ to the Transformes/Fast&Furious crowd and give me a real movie instead.

But make it fun.

people are ready to throw their phone at the wall if an app doesn't open in 1/10th of a second.

 

[BoredGuy]

blah blah blah as long as it needs to be blah blah best movie possible

after TDW, I will no longer feel bad for harping on the length
so this f***er better be 2 hours-twenty at the least

 

[MbJ]

people sat through Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia without problems, they can sit through 5 hour epics today too. There's no need pandering to the MTV generation with their short attention spans.

You're a bit late with the "MTV generation" since people who grew up on MTV are in their 30's now LOL.

But the reason you don't see 5 hour movies isn't because of Millenials. You don't see 5 hour movies because theaters hate showing them. Longer movies means you now have less showings per day, which means less revenue.

I remember when Pirates of the Caribbean 3 came out a bunch of studio chains were griping at Disney for making it longer than expected, because that completely threw off their schedules, and that was only 169 minutes.

 

[jaqua99]

Today's society (especially in the U.S.) doesn't have the temperament to sit through a 5 hour film. Call it the times, lack of appreciation, whatever. It's a sociological issue right there.
Two and a half hours seems good for this