119 minutes - no profundity or slow burn build-up then?

That's what I'm screamin, Zeta, all the way.

It's not 119 minutes...it's 1 hour and 59 minutes......calm yourself friend.....I'm not sure where the 119 nonsense started but it isn't correct....the long cut is 17 minutes longer than that...so we call all relax a little....check it out...[url=http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=57805]PROMETHEUS Running Time Revealed & New Image of Charlize Theron[/url]

Craigmore: 119 min - 1 hr 59 min. Keep up ok.

Little sleepy, just realized that.....sorry for my momentary lapse......anyway, what's the freak out for? that's 2 hours there....have a little faith people

I've seen mindblowing movies that are less than 30 minutes long.

I think 2 hrs. should be good enough to get a fine story going. I mean there's already talk of James Cameron doing the sequel. That said, I don't think a 'bladder busting' 3 hr. movie would do the story much good.

we dont know how much longer the cut is going to be, its not 17 minutes. in that interview Ridley was talking about trimming 17 minutes from a another movie he once did. he did not want mention the title of the movie. the way he talking about dvd bonuses & extras etc. he definitely alluded to there being an alternate version or longer version of prometheus on dvd or bluray. but as of right now we dont what scenes or how much longer it will be.

"They used to make LONG good films -'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Ben Hur' and I'd have thought coming from a director who's acknowledged these in 'Gladiator', this film would've really run the course to explain everything in absolute detail." Aren't you making the assumption that it's not possible for them to do this....perhaps the story dictates that pace and the resultant time....we don't know.......I simply do not understand the panic arising from that number...you want to panic?.....Do so when the studio locks Ridley out and cuts it to 90 min....then you might have a reason....

Thanks weylandshark. Craigamore, I know you and most here mean well, but this is and will still be niggling me no matter what anybody says. Take 'Clash of the Titans' remake - rush, rush, rush, rush.. even the Medusa - which was a beautifully designed cgi albeit with a dolly face was 'rushed'. She 'rushed' everywhere giving me the impression that this sequence had to be 'done and dusted' asap - honestly! Why do film studios want this 'rushed product' like pizza - out fast fast fast? Why??? I loathe this 'get it out there while it's smokin' hot' mentality. Trailers before a film is even finished - for Chrissake. It's killing the art of film..

On the bright side, in spite of that $6.50 half-gallon drink you've been slurping, you might not feel like your bladder is about to explode by the time the credits roll. But yeah, what craigamore said.

Panic!!?? I for one don't panic like some here craigamore ok? I'm just sounding off a (I think fairly) valid point of discussion here. I'm just a little dismayed. It's my view that's all and I'm entitled to it.

I get the frustration....but when it comes to runtime...I'm just saying that I always wait until I see how a story flows before I judge whether the runtime hinders or helps a picture....take a look at the extended cuts of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy for example....granted, this is my opinion, but when you watch those cuts of the film there is a distinct difference..with 'The Fellowship of the Ring', I believe the additions help and add to the flow and pacing of the film...while the same cannot be said about 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King'...in those cases, the additions complicate, diffuse and damage the film's pacing...particularly in 'The Two Towers'.....what I'm getting at is, until we have the opportunity to take in the flow of the story behind 'Prometheus' and until we know just how much was left on the cutting room flor, there's no reason to freak...just yet...

The answer is easy - it's called - wait for it............. .........an INTERMISSION...................................... Now run along and have a pee and popcorn and a text. But be back soon.

I meant panic in a general sense ZetaReticuli...sorry for any offense taken....I'm just asking for tempered expectations at both ends of the spectrum...we know nothing and as excited as we are, there's almost nothing to go on to really expect anything with any reliability, as good as it looks or short, depending on which way you lean.....

For what its worth you have my sympathy zeta, and my agreement on this one. Granted i think the film will be good but i was sold on the epic / comparison and spin from various media sources of the lawrence of arabia, / David lean, type film . But apparently epic doesn't fit the definition today of detail and length its just scale in terms of sweeping vistas, and large constructs, against little people that merits the term epic. We are talking about the huge questions of man and Earths development from our Beginnings, and the prospect of evolution, aided by aliens and such so we should be able to wrap that up in a couple of hours lol. Seven little indians in the old dark house this is not. We are entitled to be pessimistic given the nature of this film franchise's history, and the studios insistence of cuts.

And lets look at how many movies are made now that are way over 2 hours and could easily be edited to 90-120 minutes and be better films for the trim. Just because a movie is long, does not mean it is epic or good. Like said earlier, I've had my mind blown by short films before. Blade Runner was 116-119 minutes long, are you going to say it was horrible or are you one of the people that dislike blade runner? Wait to see it to pass judgement. But I am kinda unique in this. I hate everything after alien and i HATE the extended universe stuff so my emotional investment is super low. I am going in to watch a good scifi flick directed by a man with 2 films in the top 15 scifi films of all time. He's never made a bad scifi movie. Nor has be ever made a stupid scifi movie. That is enough for me.

ep·ic   [ep-ik] Show IPA adjective Also, ep·i·cal. 1. noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style: Homer's Iliad is an epic poem. 2. resembling or suggesting such poetry: an epic novel on the founding of the country. 3. heroic; majestic; impressively great: the epic events of the war. 4. of unusually great size or extent: a crime wave of epic proportions. Clearly we have different understandings of the term.

I don't think it's about equating long with good (talking about movies here, guys, get it out of the gutter). It's about those profound ideas we've been hearing about from RS et al and how all that will be covered in that amount of time.

I'm with you on intermissions, Zeta. They were a great idea which apparently became just too darned expensive.....*cough* bullshit! *cough*

Hey Gents, I’m kind of divided on the whole 119 minute running time thing. On one hand, I would like to see a no- nonsense, fast paced, suspense thriller…that get’s right into it. On the other hand, I’ve been waiting for this film since I was twelve (32 years), and maybe…just maybe, I don’t want it to just blow by in mere 2 hours. Now, for this picture…Ridley did say, “It’s epic.” I don’t know about you folks…but when I hear Scott say the word epic…I expect EPIC! …in scale, concepts…and yes, RUNNING TIME. However, I think a lot of you guys are right…it all comes down to the story and pacing. If there is to be an additional longer cut…eventually, I doubt that we’ll ever be able to enjoy it in the cinema. Unless PROMETHEUS is a much bigger success than I think it will be. ~N

As you say Neurion When Ridley said alien felt epic well Prometheus is epic that kinda conjured up all kinds of excitement and expectation in my easily lead mind. I keep saying i'm optimistic and i think the film will be good but on the other hand my expectations in terms of run time were i guess exaggerated, and unreasonable, to think it would be significantly longer.

To tell ya truth…I don’t know that I would even want to sit through more than 2 hours and 20 or 30 minutes of the world of PROMETHEUS…at least in the theater. I loathe when films that I’m enjoying…begin to draaaaaaaaag. I got that feeling in the last Batman film DARK KNIGHT. Cool flick, but for me…it dragged out too long...by about 15-20 minutes. N

I love the, "pacifist comments" throw-away: that was beautiful. All that aside: personally, I think practically 2 hours is, you know, a decent run-time. Can't we just have a little faith and judge the man after, not before, we see his film? @Shane I'm afraid you are not unique - at least not in that way, my friend - because with [i]every single word[/i], you may as well have just spoken for me.

I can see your point Neurion but that film wasn't tackling the kind of issues this film raises. Hopefully i will be as delighted as i originally thought i would be i just feel a little deflated as i'm getting a little tired of the mixed messages this film is sending out , and i'm not just talking about the run time here... the it is / isn't an alien prequel , The Really nasty film ridley wants to make yet it wants to be a pg 13 , and the 1.59 david lean type epic , its all so vague and distracting yet it looks amazing .

Yeah, it's been like a yo-yo of being fired up and then let-down, rather like Chinese Water Torture, lol. @Craigamore - no nastiness intended bro, a couple o beers and the late hour (this morning UK time was it 1:45 ish?) just dampened my self-reasoning with the runing time news. Been chewing over and trying to swallow it since. I heard it. Seriously, I should never, ever let a thing like this get to me, but I'm an artist, I love my films and music to bits and I'm from a generation that savoured the film experience. I like my films of this genre like my food - slow cooked, lol. @Shane - yes, I love 'Blade Runner' - but that again is a situationalist piece and not a story of an immense exploration over time and terrifying encounters and the details that elapsed time ( yes, I'll say it) demands. But hey that's my own rather intense taste. I'm a lot of a connossieur, lol. Ok, I'll wait and see. I 've absolutely no doubt of all the scintillatingly gorgeous visuals that will be packed into this, but - these 'jewels' could be better hung on a long necklace of plot and dialogue morsels to chew over. For the tens of thousands of harcore Alien and Giger fans at least. Does everybody get what I'm trying to say now on that note?

Look at 2001 today. That whole Blue Danube sequence can be cut. Would that really damage the movie? It was probably an "Ooh, Ahh, look at how real it all looks, that looks amazing," moment in 1968 but today it drags. Cut that baby! Get on with it. And just how many bright colors do we have to see as Bowman zips through the beyond? Cut! You have 2001 clocking in at 1:29 minutes my guess and none the worse.

Sorry dallas, but that brutal and utilitarian film making attitude is precisely what I loathe. With a passion. The 'Blue Danube' sequence is sublime and integral to the aesthetic of what '2001' is conveying - the vacuum of rolling beauty of space. That's what Stanley Kubrick's (one of Ridley Scott's inspirations incidentally) vision was as an artist. Same with The Shining. I really think the 'disease' today is the low attention span being stealthily created and bred in people because of the 'quick-fix' tech we so readily get now with absolutely everything. I'ts creating a new breed of impatient 'I want it nows'. Films are now served up like hot cakes and that's terrible.

I feel your pain Zeta - I have followed with great intrigue and excitement the build up to the release of Prometheus - even before it became Prometheus I was all over it! But I know what your saying, after been at the Q & A with Scott this week it seems to me like the Fox suits have got the tightest grip on this art (it is their property - unfortunately) and are looking to "dilute" it down to popcornville. This pisses me off - BIG STYLEE. Unfortunately, whilst the suits have hold of it nothing much can be done. It seems they have Scott wrapped around their little finger as well - As for Lindeloff, he adores the PG rating and has his nose buried deep up the corporate boys a-holes!

@ ZetaReticuli - Im completely with you on everything you said in this thread. However Im willing to give this a chance and wont complain/comment on the length until after seeing the movie.

I agree. Give me a movie that, in the tradition of David Lean, has an INTERMISSION.

The funny thing is, Scott got to make a 150 million dollar, 2 hour and 20 minute Robin Hood movie that no one was clamoring for. But his return to the Alien universe only gets 2 hours. Haha, unreal.

Thanks for sharing my view all. I suppose I'll have to stop acting like a dweeb and grow up and accept it. In the same breath I hope, come the blu-ray release, that the extra material amounts to a touch more than 17mins. An extra bit which I would've much preferred to see on the big screen first.

"@Craigamore - no nastiness intended bro, a couple o beers and the late hour (this morning UK time was it 1:45 ish?) just dampened my self-reasoning with the runing time news. Been chewing over and trying to swallow it since. I heard it. Seriously, I should never, ever let a thing like this get to me, but I'm an artist, I love my films and music to bits and I'm from a generation that savoured the film experience. I like my films of this genre like my food - slow cooked, lol." We're all good ZetaReticuli and I get your point....I'm just going to wait and see for myself... "Sorry dallas, but that brutal and utilitarian film making attitude is precisely what I loathe. With a passion. The 'Blue Danube' sequence is sublime and integral to the aesthetic of what '2001' is conveying - the vacuum of rolling beauty of space. That's what Stanley Kubrick's (one of Ridley Scott's inspirations incidentally) vision was as an artist. Same with The Shining. I really think the 'disease' today is the low attention span being stealthily created and bred in people because of the 'quick-fix' tech we so readily get now with absolutely everything. I'ts creating a new breed of impatient 'I want it nows'. Films are now served up like hot cakes and that's terrible." I'm in total agreement here ZetaReticuli....why anyone would want to butcher a classic, because they think it's slow is beyond me.....the irony being that every element, including what they see as slow moving or boring, is essential to making that film the classic it is....and I'm constantly apalled at the general inability to see art, film for what it is the course of history...you don't have to love everything that is considered a classic, but far too few give said classics a chance to begin with...it's either, in a negative sense, black & white, old, too long, too slow and so on......I went to film school and will never forget how easily so many of my classmates rejected films of earlier generations out of hand for those ignorant reasons......and still claimed to love cinema... ...it's a painful reality that much of modern society is not open to the possibilities of what is in front of them unless it shows any remote sign of their personal interest... "Look at 2001 today. That whole Blue Danube sequence can be cut. Would that really damage the movie? It was probably an "Ooh, Ahh, look at how real it all looks, that looks amazing," moment in 1968 but today it drags. Cut that baby! Get on with it. And just how many bright colors do we have to see as Bowman zips through the beyond? Cut! You have 2001 clocking in at 1:29 minutes my guess and none the worse." I'm sorry dallas!dallas!...but art is as it is seen to begin with from the artist's final declaration...strip it down, pull it apart, take out what YOU don't like or find unnecessary and it's no longer art at all...it's censored garbage...no matter what is behind the censoring.....

"Sorry dallas, but that brutal and utilitarian film making attitude is precisely what I loathe. With a passion. The 'Blue Danube' sequence is sublime and integral to the aesthetic of what '2001' is conveying - the vacuum of rolling beauty of space. That's what Stanley Kubrick's (one of Ridley Scott's inspirations incidentally) vision was as an artist. Same with The Shining. I really think the 'disease' today is the low attention span being stealthily created and bred in people because of the 'quick-fix' tech we so readily get now with absolutely everything. I'ts creating a new breed of impatient 'I want it nows'. Films are now served up like hot cakes and that's terrible." Great post. I lol'd at the concept of abbreviating an attempt to convey "the [i]infinite[/i], and beyond," No offense, dallas!dallas!, but you simply reinforced exactly what ZetaReticuli is saying.

Hi Guys - This is my first post so go easy on me! My top five films and run times 1. Shawshank Redemption 142 mins 2. The Matrix 136 mins 3. Goodfellas 148 mins 4. Alien 117 mins 5. Inception 148 mins They are also some of the best paced films ever. If this is to be 'Epic', 119 mins is just not enough for me. Going on classic epic film history, i think a min 135 mark would of hit the spot for me... Just a little dissaponited with less than 2 hours for a 30+ year wait and seems far too much going on in the trailers to fit?

nice name btw lol agreed and welcome fellow alien fan

Okay, I am going to have to make it clearer when I am being tongue in cheek. Seriously. When I said, Cut! or the whole bright colors comment . . . that didn't give it away? Seriously? lol

I'm still laughing my ass off that no one could see it! 2001 clocking in at 1:29, lmfao. I think you folks have to get off the video games!

Sorry about the harsh response dallas!dallas!....tone and a tongue in cheek mentality are sometimes hard to detect in text.....frankly I'm glad to hear you weren't serious.....