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

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.....

It's okay, Craigamore. Just can't help myself, sometimes. But seriously, I have said it before (and tongue nowhere near cheek), if Scott does something with Prometheus that is more Tarkovsky's Solaris or 2001 I would maybe have to form some kind of religion worshiping the guy.

well don't go that far.....

ALIEN- 117 minutes= 1 hour 57 minutes ALIENS- 137 minutes= 2 hours 17 minutes ALIEN 3- 114 minutes= 1 hour 54 minutes ALIEN RESURRECTION- 109 minutes= 1 hour 49 minutes PROMETHEUS- 119 minutes= 2 hours 0 minutes To me I think the run time is just fine to be honest. I mean look at all the other Alien films run time. They all hover around 2 hours and they turned out to be flipping fantastic. All 4 of them. I'm sure Ridley Scott will deliver in just around 2 hours as he did in ALIEN. I don't really believe the runtime is an issue at all. Now if the film was 1 hour and 30 minutes oh boy would we have problems then. But yeah be thankful its 2 hours. It could be a whole lot worse and 2 hours is what it should be. If the first ALIEN film was 2 hours than why can't Prometheus.

Scott has been saying it himself. He's a BUSINESSMAN, first and foremost. I love the guy and the entertainment he's been providing for 35 yrs, but I don't think he would be saying that prior to ALIEN. I *think* he would be saying I want to scare the sh*t out of my audience and tell the best story, and stand behind that through hell and high water. I'm just disgusted with this PG-13 mentality and how it's infected our genius directors. Kubrick wouldn't stand for it, would he? Does Scorsese?

Well, what's done is done. Ridley Scott has created a theatrical version right at 2 hours. I think it's going to be great. As we all know now, there's going to be 17 minutes of added footage on the Blu-Ray release, so the pessimists here need to relax. The only way Ridley could have got his way on this film is if he did as George Lucas did on the Star Wars prequels: he financed the films out of his very own pocket. Also, we don't know what sort of ride we're in for; so let's just have faith and remain positive. Ripley Clone 8, I'm in total agreement with about if the film was 90 minutes long, that would be suspect. Because as we all know, unless a film is a comedy of some kind, then 90 minutes just doesn't cut it otherwise in other genres.

@ craigamore Scottology could be bigger than L Ron Hubbard! No offense to you scientologists out there. I know how touchy you can be.

That's my only gripe about this great film, tell a lie 2 gripes... the way Hollywood, is trying to homogenize every single film to a one size fits all, cosy, family affair, safe bullshit mentality, and the other is the fact i've been looking up this film from the onset of it's announcement and hanging on to every word spoken about it and priming myself with the belief i'm being told the truth for a spectacular EPIC. Now history of films and the understanding i have of the term is now in question. DAVID LEAN FILMS.... Dr zhivago-226 min ......... Bridge on the river kwai-161 min Lawrence of arabia 216 min A passage to india- 164 min As they are using david lean as an example of epic film making to give a flavour of the influence of scope i think its fair to say we can be forgiven for feeling a little short changed in prometheus's 119 min runtime.