avatar logo

Editor’s (Peter Sciretta) Note: Brendon filed this report yesterday, but I wasn’t initially willing to run it based on an unconfirmed source on a Twitter account. But since that time, /Film’s Russ Fischer was able to follow-up with Avatar producer John Landau, who made an appearance at the Ubisoft booth during the E3 video game convention. Fischer asked about Avatar’s running time, and Landau confirmed that it is “definitely over two and a half hours.”

The reason why I had my doubts is that the film is being released theatrically in 2D, Digital 3D and IMAX 3D, but the latter format does not allow for three-hour films. I contacted IMAX, and they confirmed that the longest a non-digital 3D presentation could run is 160 minutes, and that is with two separate film reels, one for each eye. I asked IMAX if they would be forced to cut down Avatar if the finished film ran 3 hours in length, and they said they’d get back to me — which of course, they never did. When IMAX first began screening theatrical upconversions, the maxium running time was shorter, and I do recall one of the Harry Potter films being shortened a few minutes of the IMAX presentation. So it is possible that the same thing might have to be done for Avatar.

You can read Brendon’s original report, which claims a finished running time of 189 minutes (or three hours and nind minutes)  after the jump.

Brendon’s Report begins:

According to the threadmeisters at Film Crew T-Shirts, the running time of James Cameron’s Avatar is going to be… drum roll please… 189 minutes. How would they know? Well, I assume they’ve fostered some strong relationships with members of, quite obviously, film crews, and furthermore that one of these folks is a crew member on Avatar. Far from impossible.

Everything I know about Avatar suggests a 189 minute run time will still require a brisk pace and some tight editing to get all of the different narrative threads spun out neatly. Titanic ran over 5 minutes longer and, relatively speaking, that was a straightforward story that took far less exposition just to get the premise clear in people’s minds.

Interestingly, James Cameron has had a few bouts of crew friction that flared up into Blade Runner style T-shirt wars. On Terminator 2, the crew made shirts that said “”You Can’t Scare Me - I Work For Jim Cameron.”

More recently, Sam Worthington raffled off an Avatar t-shirt that gave us the first definite look at artwork from within the production. It showed a silhouette of a Na’vi character and contained the film’s logotype, which we’ve now seen in all subsequent promotions.

I don’t think Cameron would be the kind of guy to buckle and let anything other than his director’s cut, no matter how long it is, be the theatrical release. I can’t imagine he’ll be accepting a run time ceiling on his final cut contract. Sure, Aliens was released in a cut down version, and I’m still not entirely clear on whether the longer Terminator 2 was Cameron’s preferred version or not, but those were both released before he was made King of the World.

Many of the recent posts on the Film Crew T-Shirts Twitter feed have been about Date Night with Steve Carell and Tina Fey, on the set of which they witnessed some car stunts, and GI Joe, about which they revealed nothing, gagged by an NDA. While they retain their anonymity they stand a very good chance of digging up some really good scoopage.

  • If they do have to cut it down, that sucks, but he didn't film any scenes specifically for the IMAX format, did he?
  • bring it.......can not wait for this movie to drop
  • Jake
    Well Fox is scared shitless of Cameron so it won't be from their end, the only thing that would limit it is if it's **technically** impossible to run a film that long
  • I hope it's a reasonable 2.5 hour movie, not "here's two movies worth of story that we chopped down to 2.5 hours" like Dark Knight or "this movie is 2.5 hours though it never should be" like Transformers or Peter Jackson's King Kong.

    I'm fine with long movies that demand long running times so I hope this is one of them.
  • Robert Dennis
    you are a moron
  • I would prefer to see this film in IMAX 3D just for the massive screen but if they have to shorten this film to make it fit that format, I say don't do it. I would rather see this film in 2D with a 35 mm print than see it shortened. Hell, I want a three hour plus science fiction opus. And if it sucks (which I highly doubt) I'll never revisit it. I'm glad Cameron scares the shit out of Fox and Rothman. I just wish there were more filmmakers out there like him.
  • THEIG
    Don't forget the elusive Episode II: Attack of the Clones IMAX cut that I was told was much better.
  • Haha, it was! They cut out almost all of the slow-moving romance scenes. It was sweet.

    Although I think they may have cut out that sequence on Kamino with Jango Fett, too. I can't remember now.
  • Titanic had a premise?
  • Can someone direct me to a link or tell me why people are so excited for this movie? Is it because of the mech stuff? I can't really tell if it's over-the-top sci-fi fantasy or something else. I know a lot of guys go crazy for mech stuff, and I get that... But is that the main draw or is it something else?

    Seriously, I want to know, I'm not picking a fight. I want to be excited for this with everyone else. :)
  • It is because this movie is supposed to have the most mind blowing SFX of all tiem pretty much, with revolutionary 3d techniques and what not. It has been extremely hyped from many insiders as "the future" although we have yet to see a single image.
  • Lawdog
    It's the tech stuff, not the mech stuff.

    Original 3D was red and blue glasses and gimmicky. So gimmicky that a lot of 3D shows would have you only put on the glasses when prompted for a specific scene...usually involving poking a stick at the camera. Real D 3D is much better, but you still have that "I'm watching 3D" feeling nagging at your brain. This is the next step in 3D. Instead of looking like "3D" it should look simply three dimensional, or as I like to call it...real. This is the reason behind presenting it in a taller format than you normally see in a theater. He wants to reduce the peripheral distractions for total immersion in the Avatar world. *orgasm* sorry, nerd pr0n.

    It also doesn't hurt that James Cameron has a pretty decent track record with sci/fi.
  • Dexter
    In Cameron we trust.
  • Designer
    .
    For all the money and hype spent on this film, you would think they could come up with something better than that crappy logo.
  • whatstaiters
    agreed. i'm so sick of seeing Papyrus everywhere. It's like the new comic sans or cooper.
  • Rodney
    In the past IMAX theatres have had films that ran longer than the film platters could hold. For Rolling Stones at the MAX, they had an intermission. For Apollo 13 and Star Wars II, they edited the films down by as much as 20 min to fit the hardware requirements. A few have shaved a little bit of time by speeding up the credits. They have also upgraded the hardware to allow for longer and longer films. The biggest reels hold about 160 min of film (Watchmen was the longest film ever played in IMAX) The biggest film platters are six feet in diameter and weigh hundreds of pounds when fully loaded. What will they do with a 3 hour move... we will have to wait and see.
  • So, it they can divide Avatar into two 1.5 hour film reels and have a 5 or 10 minute intermission, Cameron's vision will be retained? If so, why the hell not?!?
    P.S. - I don't get why recent three hour movies like King Kong and The Lord of the Rings had no intermissions. I'm not saying I can't sit though a 3-hour movie; it's just that when your bladder is yelling at you, you have to do SOMETHING. Modern Hollywood execs: there's a reason why Gandhi and The Godfather II had intermissions -- people like them.
    P.S.S. - Hey Peter (or anyone else that has an answer), can a non-IMAX 3D movie run for 3 hours on one reel?
  • Yes, because it will be digital, not from a print. Modern 3D techniques don't allow projection from 35mm.
  • While the SFX are sure to be amazing that isn't what is making me wait for this movie with bated breath... all you have to do is compare the first terminator with the most recent to see what real filmmaking is all about. Cameron delivers on all counts, not just pretty pictures.
  • If Avatar has to be cut down in order to be viewed in IMAX 3-D then I'm definitely going to see it in a regular 3-D theater for at least the first viewing.
  • Very exciting news.
    Hopefully we'll see at least a minute or two of that soon.
  • I can't wait till Camerons new movie come to me...
  • i just listened to the commentary on T2 a few weeks ago and he said that the shorter cut was better for the movie and it was good to have it cut out. plus i watched one of the scenes, a dream sequence, where michael biehn comes in while sarah conner's still in the mental hospital. It was wierd, didn't fit.
  • Johan
    The only James Cameron movie that was superior in a longer cut was the Abyss, much like Ridley Scotts Kingdom of Heaven, it was almost like two different movies.
  • Johan
    Hey, speed up the credits sounds like a great idea. Are not most credits like five minutes or something? Why not skip them altogether, or only leave "directed by James Cameron" and roll the main cast and then snip.
  • I think there are legal issues with film crew and actor unions that prevent that sort of thing.
  • Awesome, thank you. :)
  • So is this the same as the Disney/Pixar/etc 3D we've been seeing recently? What I mean is, is the "real" look because it's filmed in 3D without stupid "wow" effects? Or is it actually a new kind of 3D technology that isn't out yet?

    I just wonder because I just saw Up recently and they didn't do any "wow" things with the 3D. It was just like, "and this is 3 dimensional, if you're paying attention." Not like stuff coming out of the screen or anything.
  • Haha, I always complain about Papyrus. Or French Script. SO overused.
  • kyriacos
    yes i agree T2 was better with out that m biehn scene,, and surely with out arnolds brain surgery from lindas hamilton twin sister scene..

    but the cut scenes on T2 was a Cameron call not a studio call..
  • Chris
    Why do I get the feeling that after all the hype (but little promotion) surrounding this film it will be generally ignored by the majority when it's finally released? Even now most people have no clue what "Avatar" is, and are more likely to confuse it with "The Last Airbender" than anything else.
  • john doe
    I think the majority of the hype is coming strictly from fans of the science fiction film community. The regular, main stream movie goer will not be aware of this film until the first trailer hits the multiplex. I just heard about it from a friend, who had to correct me when I thought it was based on "Airbender".
  • The more and more I think about Avatar, the more I think it will be awesome. BUT the more and more I think about Avatar, the more I begin to worry about it's box office profit. This movie probably cost tons, and there has been pratcially ZERO buzz, a rumored 3 hours and over run itme, and is being realeased over a slew of Christmas movies. And I have a feeling Fox is going to try to get a PG-13 even if Cameron wants an R in hopes to "bring people in." Man, I want MORE INFO!
  • Dag, Yo
    Titanic, which was, as stated, longer than this and made almost 2 BILLION DOLLARS, so the time is not a concern, and I am willing to bet that, at this point, Cameron gets what he wants when it comes to ratings and final cuts.
  • michael
    The credits alone will probably run 10 minutes.
  • Terry
    Hey Critic28, I honestly didn't think Titanic would do that well (hate it to this day) but Cameron is a special director and in his element of sci-fi, I think Avatar can break banks. (Remember Titanic was an ultra long movie and a fairly simple premise but people flocked to it like it was the fountain of youth.) Avatar looks to have technology that we've never seen before that I expect will blow our socks off. Also, considering that Cameron hasn't really done anything substantial for 10 years? I think we will be in for a serious epic. But I agree with you that I want to know more!
  • Pablo
    I predict Avatar will be pushed back to summer '10.
    189 minutes is over 3 hours - my butt hurts just thinking about it. Someone should tell Cameron, and all great directors, that some of their ideas suck.
  • jmatlack@gmail.com
    189 minutes is 3hrs9min ... I don't know. TITANIC was a historical film that called for the 3hr+ treatment, but this is starting to feel a bit indulgent. And while the technology is sure to be quite an experience and the story concept is interesting, I don't think that it will make the bank like TITANIC did. TITANIC had two things going for it: Leonardo DiCaprio and one of the most romanticized historical events of modern times. This brought in teenage girls in droves, but also attracted the elderly. I also doubt it will be the next STAR WARS like some claim it could be. The original STAR WARS got the job done in 2 tight and energetic hours
  • enojo
    An IMAX rep actually told me the movie would be 3 and a 1/2 hours long, with intermission.
  • John Cookson
    The most impressive 3D I have ever seen was "The Magic Box" IMAX 3D.
    Absolutely incredible resolution and stunning 3D. Another plus is that such movies lasted under an hour.

    It will be interesting to hear if Avatar IMAX 3D matches this quality.

    Unfortunately I won't be going to see this one as 3 hours is too long to be sat in a movie theatre and they won't even let you go outside for some fresh air nowadays.
blog comments powered by Disqus