Length

[beckmen]

By no means a confirmation of the running time, Colin Strause thinks once AvP 2 is edited it'll resemble the length of Predator more so than AvP:

"You can't force a time onto a movie, otherwise it will drag. That said, the length of Predator is good for that type of movie, so I'm sure we will be somewhere in that range once we are done editing, but until then we don't want to be quoted on the length before the edit is locked. It will be as long as it needs to be."

Does anybody understand the meaning of the first part of that? Predator is 107 minutes, AVP is 101 minutes, the Unrated cut is 108. So Predator and AVP are basically the same length. Did Izzet mean to say Aliens? I am confused.

Also, this is kind of bad news to me. I wanted a movie that was over 2 hours to have proper build up and then a solid amount of action. Aliens did it. AVP did not. You kind of need to be over 2 hours to achieve this, otherwise one of the elements will be lacking. I dunno, maybe not. We'll see.

[SiL]

AvP was 95 minutes, not 101. And that's including its ten-minute long credit sequence at the end. Otherwise the movie was only actually 85 minutes, hence the title 'Not another 85-minute action romp?'

You don't need over two hours. Everyone keeps saying that, but it's just bullshit. Predator had a good build up and kick-ass action scenes with a running time of well under two hours. Plenty of other action movies have done the same.

You need as long as you need. If you need two hours to fully tell the story, by all means do it, but that's not always the case. Predator being any longer than it was wouldn't be as good as it is now, for example. It's got a great pace and it carries it to the end nicely - Any more, and it would've started dragging.

The runtime should fit the movie, not the other way around.

[InspectorDC]

In fact a lot of 85 minute movies are even too long...

[beckmen]

For the theatrical edition, the credits start rolling at 1:28:45 or so. So it's 88 minutes. Predator's credits start at about 1:42:45, so it's 102 minutes. When you factor in the credits, it makes more sense.

Still, MOST recent blockbuster movies that have been short have felt kind of slim. X3? Yeah. Even AVP was over way too soon and felt rushed to me. Predator used it's running time really well, so there is hope for AVP2 in that respect. But I would still rather have a 130-minute movie. I really usually like longer Blockbusters more.

[Crom Strong]

Crank packed more ass kicking into 87 minutes than most three hour films.  Not comparing Crank to AvP2 but this whole issue is kinda moot.  While I can sit and waste a weekend watching LOTR, the last time I watched King Kong I just skipped over the first hour.  After a while it's like "show me the fucking monkey!"  It just depends on the story.

[Hudson]

You kind of need to be over 2 hours to achieve this, otherwise one of the elements will be lacking.

Predator did that fine at less than 2 hours...

[beckmen]

Yes, it did. So we'll see.

[Dutch]

Predator had one creature to introduce, avp has two! I believe 2 hours for this movie is perfect.

not to short leaving you dissapointed and wanting more and not too long so ur hoping for the end!

[Dutch90]

Predator had one creature to introduce, avp has two! I believe 2 hours for this movie is perfect.

not to short leaving you dissapointed and wanting more and not too long so ur hoping for the end!

AVP only had to introduce the concept of Aliens and Predators fighting; the creatures already had four and two films under their belts, respectively. I expect AVP2 to be somewhere around 110 minutes, which is close to that of the preceding movies (except Aliens and Alien³'s assembly cut).

[Bartleby]

AVP only had to introduce the concept of Aliens and Predators fighting; the creatures already had four and two films under their belts, respectively. I expect AVP2 to be somewhere around 110 minutes, which is close to that of the preceding movies (except Aliens and Alien³'s assembly cut).

Yeah, but how many of those minutes are just boring exposition?

[beckmen]

That is in the eye of the beholder. I actually like the exposition. I like my Alien flicks to be slow-boil. Even though the characters were about as weak as you can get. I did like Weyland, though.

[Weasel]

The thing about AVP was that they had to get to Antartica.  So you have all the pre-trip non-sense that seemed extremely rushed. Staying in place with allow easier and smoother character development.

[Bartleby]

The thing about AVP was that they had to get to Antartica.  So you have all the pre-trip non-sense that seemed extremely rushed. Staying in place with allow easier and smoother character development.

Yeah, exactly, compare to Jurassic Park (same setup, where scientists are brought to the island), yet the exposition is handled well (and better actors, too, obviously). +merit

[InspectorDC]

I agree too, the middle part of avp wasn't too bad actually, but the beginning of it in particular is just lousy. Obviously Anderson thought he could write his way out of it by inane extreme character introduction(s), which just made the film start off even more implausible

[Hudson]

The only thing that needs to be introduced in this movie is the PredAlien, though I would hope that most people seeing AvP 2 aren't just random moviegoers, but fans, so they'd probably know the general concept, if not from playing game n' stuff.  That's the only aspect of the movie that should remotely take more time, and I'm just thinking of a fight and then an establishing shot, in that order.