Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Thor' started by Still A ThorFan, Feb 24, 2011.
Thor will clock in at 2hrs and 10 min according to IMDB.
That sounds like great length, it's not too long or too short (although I enjoy long films).
I hope that's actually the right time, because it's very hard to trust IMDB.
Yeah it takes something more official than IMDB before I'll believe it. 2h 10m sounds good though.
I agree, I need more than IMDB for something like that.
My fear is that is an hour and a half. That would piss me off. I want it long. As long as possible! I waited 20 years damn it........
A little over 2 hours would probably be the perfect time. As long as I get my directors cut then i'll be fine.
I could watch a 5 hour Thor movie and be happy though. Same for most other characters that I like.
I'm really curious about the Avengers runtime personally. Its going to almost HAVE to be 2 1/2 hours at least IMO.
If it's really 2h 10min I approve it.
Was there a "director's cut" for TIH and IM1/IM2?
The Iron Man movies were pretty long right?
About 2 hours each.
From what I know of the story I'm not sure they could cram it all into 90 minutes. There seems to be a lot going on in this flick.
I agree, and its why i'm assuming there will be a bit of it cut out. Thats why I mentioned that as long as I get a directors cut then i'll be happy. I understand needing to keep summer movies to around 2 hours. I could hope for 2 1/2 though.
I think 2:10 is a great time, personally. It's long enough to flesh out the story but still short enough that people won't be tuning out. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but even I was pretty much falling asleep by the third hour of the extended DVDs.
I could watch a 5 hour Thor epic but I understand most people wouldn't.
2 hours is about right. I just hope they tell the story they need to even if it runs a little long. I'd rather get the best movie they can deliver.
That sounds accurate. IM1 I think was 2hr 7mins, and IM2 was just under 2hrs. I don't see them making it 90mins or anything. History shows Marvel likes them to be near 2hrs.
As long as the flick is entertaining then I don't think that the general audience would mind a long runtime. It's when it gets down the the boring parts that draw out that you start to realise things like 'damn i need a whiz'.
That's a fair point, but it's kind of an exponential relationship. If a movie is really great, it could run for 3 hours and no one would notice because it's so damn engrossing. But if a movie is good with a few flaws here and there, those flaws are magnified more and more the longer the movie runs. People are already complaining about Kat Dennings' character based on a trailer. 2 hours of her, most could probably deal with, but they'd probably be close to rioting after 3.
My guess is that we'll get less than 10 min of the actual scenes where she says the "lines" that everyone is complaining about anyway.
I wish they had matinee type movies like the old days where they'd show a shorter film before hand and also show Tales of Asgard BEFORE Thor the movie.
I didn't know TIH, IM, & IM2 had "director's cuts".
I don't think there is BT. I was just saying with the big, epic stories for Thor, a run time of 2h is a little short so I am guessing that Brannagh will shoot a lot more than makes it in the release. Then i'm hoping we get the full epic later on DVD.
I'm probably just hoping but hey. t:
They might surprise us with the extended versions when The Avengers comes out!
We can hope.