WTF? The next PIRATES flick is gonna be almost 3 hours!

[DerekG]

As if the first two weren't bloated enough...this one's just under three hours!

Keep in mind that two of the most acclaimed action/adventure films of 2005--Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and George Lucas's Revenge of the Sith--clocked in somewhere around 2 hours and 10 minutes. Bruce finds his soul and spares Gotham its apocalypse...CREDIT ROLL! Anakin loses his soul and ushers one in...CREDIT ROLL! Now, I dig Jack Sparrow, but he isn't anywhere near as compelling, or iconic, as the Batman or Darth Vader. So why devote these absolutely numbing running times to a bloody pirate flick?

It seems editing is a lost art among genre filmmakers.

[electprogdems]

1. maybe we will get lucky

and it will be a three hour film of Keith Richards reminiscing about the "old days" with Johnny Depp over beers.

[DS1]

2. with the flattest movie bar wench ever Keira Knightley providing the suds?

I'd watch three hours of that

[BarenakedLady]

3. I'd watch Johnny for as long as it takes

:9

[Beaverhausen]

5. Oh yeah. I think he is totally hilarious in this role!

Even if the movie is a big, long mess like the last one, it will surely be fun!

[ElizabethDC]

4. It better be good . . .

I thought the last one sucked and was wayyyy tooo longggg. I'm only gonna see this next one if it gets really spectacular reviews.

[Omphaloskepsis]

6. God damn, I hate long movies.

I say this as a former projectionist (3 years). Long movies are such a pain in the ass. They are hard to move, changing trailers is a bitch, if they have static problems you are fucked, and they fuck up start times (and naps)..


edit :: typo