[NCC_1701A]

Originally Posted by JSnyder4

Same reason movies are edited to begin with.
Pacing and run time are the big hitters.

Just because a movie is longer doesn't automatically make it better.

But it does have a much better chance to be better if its longer. More time for character development ect.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Damage75

Can anyone explain to me why this movie was shortened?

Apparently, we're not going to see alot of Nero's backstory because they had to "get the movie down".

Why would you have to do that? The movie is just over 2 hours...it was going to be almost 2 hours & 20 min....what is the big deal about 20 more minutes?

Plus, you've already paid for the scene to be shot, and the actors have already performed it, so aren't you throwing away money by not airing it?

What gives?

When I was watching the youtube footage of his Jimmy Kimmel interview Abrams said that he had filmed the scenes in question because at the time he thought the film needed them, then in editing it, he felt they weren't needed. So he took them out.

That happens in almost every film though.

[Big D]

Originally Posted by JasonSTForever

Perhaps these "big holes" such as Nero's backstory will leave room for a refreshed book franchise for Star Trek

The 'Countdown' comics are all about Nero's backstory, which apparently was never filmed - because it involves

spoilers

several of the 'Next Generation' cast, and would've been confusing and out-of-place to an uninitiated audience.

[Captain Pike]

How long was King Kong?

[HippyDave]

Originally Posted by Captain Pike

How long was King Kong?

Which one, Jackson's remake? Way too bloody long.

Longer is not necessarily better. Sometimes the script and/or director just pad out the running time with witless/pointless non sequiturs. Jackson's Kong wasn't bad, exactly, but it could have lost half an hour of its running time and been just as good, if not better.

[Cannibal]

Very good point.
I loved Jackson's King Kong but I don't rewatch it because it's so long.
That was one movie that definitely needed to trim some of the fat.

[martok2112]

Aye. I've had Jackson's King Kong on DVD going on about two or three years now...and STILL haven't opened the wrapping on it to watch the video.

Good movie, but yeah, a wee bit too long.

[thestartrekker]

I see a 'Directors Cut' somewhere in the distance.

[Damage75]

That's what I'm talking about! I also heard that his backstory is done rather quickly, so you don't get truly get why he feels the way he does...

Countdown covered his backstory, so I guess if you reads the comics (as I did), then you get the backstory.

I can see cutting out some non-relevant scene

Barely worth tagging

(like they did with Kirk's uncle & stepdad supposedly

. That doesn't bother me.

I just would think that having already shot the scenes, you might as well show them. It will be in the DVD (JJ mentioned this already), so that will have to do.

I saw the Kimmel interview too....I guess if we trusted JJ this far, we have to believe he knows what he's doing, right?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Captain Pike

How long was King Kong?

Theatrical or special edition - the latter pushes 3 hours.

Originally Posted by HippyDave

Which one, Jackson's remake? Way too bloody long.

Longer is not necessarily better. Sometimes the script and/or director just pad out the running time with witless/pointless non sequiturs. Jackson's Kong wasn't bad, exactly, but it could have lost half an hour of its running time and been just as good, if not better.

I think that's the benefit of doing longer cuts for DVD. I did fidget in the cinema, but at home the long run time doesn't bother me at all. I love setting aside a quiet night for it! I really love Jackson's version of the film, but I get it's run time puts some off.

Originally Posted by thestartrekker

I see a 'Directors Cut' somewhere in the distance.

It's all the rage now - Unrated editions, director's cuts - films are so pliable these days. What u get in the cineme doesn't mean you'll get the same on the DVD.