Abrams talks Trek time | Movie News

Abrams talks Trek time
Comments: 14
terometer
28%
Strike Back below!
by: Dave Davis Oct. 14, 2008

If you were expecting JJ Abrams' STAR TREK to be an endlessly epic experience, make plans for after the flick.

The director believes you actually can get too much of a good thing -- he fully intended to keep the film contained around the two-hour mark. “I’m sick of these two hours and forty-five minute movies," he tells MTV (obviously referring to lengthy summer fare like THE DARK KNIGHT). "Seriously, it’s like I don’t have enough time to stay two hours and forty-five minutes. I’m exhausted just saying that twice. I can’t stand it.”

It seems ironic that the guy who stretched convoluted subplots and obfuscation across several seasons of TV's "ALIAS" (not to mention his complicity in the frustrations of "LOST") is someone without significant patience for entertainment, or maybe he just learned something about brevity from working on the hit-em-and-run horror flick CLOVERFIELD.

Source: MTV

Add to MFC Profile

Extra Tidbit: Abrams discusses the furor about the (non) participation of Shatner right here, which could conceivably be yet more misdirection.

14 discussions Expand all
Show Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Most Popular
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
anomaly7
4:32PM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
It all depends
A great script and director can make a long movie fantastic. I'm normally the person who likes getting director cuts, to get a more fleshed out story line and character development. But in the wrong hands, a long-run time can ruin the whole movie. It all depends on what is necessary to tell the story.
A great script and director can make a long movie fantastic. I'm normally the person who likes getting director cuts, to get a more fleshed out story line and character development. But in the wrong hands, a long-run time can ruin the whole movie. It all depends on what is necessary to tell the story.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Dark Knight
4:19PM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
WELL ...
... JJ, don't worry: two hours is more than enough to f*** things up. And ,by the way, TDK is 152 minutes long ...
... JJ, don't worry: two hours is more than enough to f*** things up. And ,by the way, TDK is 152 minutes long ...
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
TBagNUrMom
1:33PM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
MISSE DERECTION
How cool would it be if all this talk about Shatner not being in this one with Abrams also confirming turns out to be a BIG PIECE OF DOO DOO with Shatner having a cameo, hair piece and all? Man that would kick balls!
How cool would it be if all this talk about Shatner not being in this one with Abrams also confirming turns out to be a BIG PIECE OF DOO DOO with Shatner having a cameo, hair piece and all? Man that would kick balls!
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
dreamfall
12:51PM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I don't get why people complain about about movie length! If you've been waiting for a movie to come out for sometime now, wouldn't you want it to be as long as possible since the next wont come out for another 3 years? And if you seriously cant find 2.5 hours out of your day to watch a movie, maybe you're working too much!



But as or Trek, I woudn't mind it being something...
I don't get why people complain about about movie length! If you've been waiting for a movie to come out for sometime now, wouldn't you want it to be as long as possible since the next wont come out for another 3 years? And if you seriously cant find 2.5 hours out of your day to watch a movie, maybe you're working too much!



But as or Trek, I woudn't mind it being something like 2 hours and a few minutes over. But if it is only 1:30 or 1:45, thats way too short for something like that.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
sparkholiday
11:41AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
thank god
I completely agree with Abrams here. It seems like too many directors, when they get their hands on a big franchise, get carried away trying to make "epic" movies. Nine times out of ten, they make boring movies, instead. Superman Returns, anyone? And why does everybody think he's talking about TDK? TDK isn't the only movie ever made for fuck's sake, it's quite possibly he's speaking of a...
I completely agree with Abrams here. It seems like too many directors, when they get their hands on a big franchise, get carried away trying to make "epic" movies. Nine times out of ten, they make boring movies, instead. Superman Returns, anyone? And why does everybody think he's talking about TDK? TDK isn't the only movie ever made for fuck's sake, it's quite possibly he's speaking of a general trend he's noticed with these sorts of projects.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
HoyleHaw
9:38AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
There's truth to both arguments. The moment a film starts FEELING too long, guess what...Then there are movies that make use of every minute and still end up being the better side of three hours.



TDK wasn't terribly wasteful in time, but it is an intense ride made all the more that way because it is so long. Transformers, on the other hand, was needlessly long in my opinion. Not...
There's truth to both arguments. The moment a film starts FEELING too long, guess what...Then there are movies that make use of every minute and still end up being the better side of three hours.



TDK wasn't terribly wasteful in time, but it is an intense ride made all the more that way because it is so long. Transformers, on the other hand, was needlessly long in my opinion. Not bad, but it lacked an even narrative. Iron Man, just over two hours, felt like every frame was used, even if it spent more time developing characters than showing action.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
ColdZro
9:25AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
First, Balboa is right on.



Second, I agree with Thembones, that Cloverfield was too short. If Abrams wants to worry about movie length, he should start worrying about their being too SHORT!



Cloverfield has a runtime of 1:25; ANY movie worth making is worth more than an hour and a half. Hell, it's not a MOVIE until it crosses the hour and a half mark!
...
First, Balboa is right on.



Second, I agree with Thembones, that Cloverfield was too short. If Abrams wants to worry about movie length, he should start worrying about their being too SHORT!



Cloverfield has a runtime of 1:25; ANY movie worth making is worth more than an hour and a half. Hell, it's not a MOVIE until it crosses the hour and a half mark!



And a movie like Star Trek absolutely MUST come in at, at LEAST (Hear that? AT LEAST), the two hour area. If Trek is NOT longer than two hours, it'll automatically feel thin; it won't have the epic feel that it really ought to have.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Balboa6
4:40AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I'm so sick to death of people whining about movie lengths. There's no such thing as "too long." Movies are as long as they need to be to effectively tell the story. Seriously, it's not that hard to just sit still, shut the fuck up, look at the Goddamn screen and pay attention. Most people these days have the attention span of a gnat.
I'm so sick to death of people whining about movie lengths. There's no such thing as "too long." Movies are as long as they need to be to effectively tell the story. Seriously, it's not that hard to just sit still, shut the fuck up, look at the Goddamn screen and pay attention. Most people these days have the attention span of a gnat.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Sonny Corleone
2:40AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
I don't give a rat's dick about Star Trek.
I don't give a rat's dick about Star Trek.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
Derrida
1:57AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
When will people see through Abrams?
He is the pure definition of a one trick pony - sure he comes up with interesting premises but that's about it. "Alias" dragged on for too long and went up its own arse, same thing happened to "Lost". "Fringe" is already starting to suck. Simply put Abrams is the M Night Shyamalan of the TV industry.
He is the pure definition of a one trick pony - sure he comes up with interesting premises but that's about it. "Alias" dragged on for too long and went up its own arse, same thing happened to "Lost". "Fringe" is already starting to suck. Simply put Abrams is the M Night Shyamalan of the TV industry.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
thembones
1:08AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
IT ALL DEPENDS
If a film warrants 2+ hours, then so be it. Return of the King was 2:50(?) and it could have been longer because it was just great. The LOTR extended cuts run nearly 12 hours and it's fantastic at that length. Cloverfield was too damn short. I wanted more. It could have easily been 2 hours and that may have been enough but who knows. If a film is put together well and has enough substance...
If a film warrants 2+ hours, then so be it. Return of the King was 2:50(?) and it could have been longer because it was just great. The LOTR extended cuts run nearly 12 hours and it's fantastic at that length. Cloverfield was too damn short. I wanted more. It could have easily been 2 hours and that may have been enough but who knows. If a film is put together well and has enough substance then it's whatever length that it ends up. I prefer more movie for my buck. Even if a movie drags and Dark Knight did drag at some points but its duration was just fine. If a film drags on too long just for filler then it's too long. It always ends up that really good movies are too short and bad ones are too long. Most of the time though, gimme more and not credits. Role them suckers as fast as you can.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
ginopags
12:50AM on 10/15/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
douche
I didn't like the dark knight, but not because of its runtime... this guy sounds like a douche bag hypocrite. Oh, and his filmmaking (MI3 and Cloverfield) is weak.
I didn't like the dark knight, but not because of its runtime... this guy sounds like a douche bag hypocrite. Oh, and his filmmaking (MI3 and Cloverfield) is weak.
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
writer19
11:20PM on 10/14/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
what the fuck is this? everyone in hollywood is goin to take cheap shots at the fuckin dark knight now?
what the fuck is this? everyone in hollywood is goin to take cheap shots at the fuckin dark knight now?
 
+0
Vote Up Vote Down
no2narc
11:17PM on 10/14/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile
It seems somehow 'contrived' to put Shatner/Kirk in a scene...? Yet at the same time they've figured out every conceivable way to insert Spock into all movies including (according to what I've heard) the upcoming flick? Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer they have Spock in there rather than Kirk. Abrams should just fess up that they really never intended to put Shatner in there in the...
It seems somehow 'contrived' to put Shatner/Kirk in a scene...? Yet at the same time they've figured out every conceivable way to insert Spock into all movies including (according to what I've heard) the upcoming flick? Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer they have Spock in there rather than Kirk. Abrams should just fess up that they really never intended to put Shatner in there in the first place and move on.



Christ, it's like Galaxy Quest crosses over to real life or something. I'm just sayin'...
JoBlo Movie Show | Movie Games | Stanley Kubrick Tribute | Chat Room | JoBlo Comic Strip | Contests | Links | Advertise on this Site | JoBlo in the Media | JoBlo.com Newsletter
Site Credits | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Site Map
© 1998 - present JoBlo Media Inc., All Rights Reserved Hello | JoBlo® is a trademark of JoBlo Media Inc. All movie titles, pictures, etc... are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Dedicated hosting provided by the good folks at NEXCESS.NET Web Hosting
Website Design & Development by Face3 Media
Search Engine Optimization powered by Higher Education Marketing