Will You Be Able to Watch Nearly 3 Hours of Avatar in 3D?
We're all anxiously waiting for James Cameron's Avatar and hoping that it will change cinema as we know it. I, for one, am anxious to see if it finally shows us what 3D is truly capable of, in terms of enhancing the storytelling (and not just being used as a sales gimmick). But I know people always complain about the glasses and the eye strain of 3D. SlashFilm reports that they talked with producer Jon Landau at E3 today and got confirmation that Avatar is at least two and a half hours long, maybe even three, depending on how Cameron cuts it together in the end. Will you be able to watch nearly three hours of Avatar in 3D?
Of course, my answer to question is "hell yes!" I'll be watching Avatar no matter how long it is. But I don't think everyone else will say the same. Landau said that Avatar was "definitely over two and a half hours." That kind of running time isn't really a shocker for a Cameron feature. Aliens ran 2 hours, 17 minutes (plus an extra 17 mins for the special edition); The Abyss ran 2 hours, 18 minutes (plus an extra 33 mins for the special edition); Terminator 2 ran 2 hours, 17 minutes (plus an extra 17 mins for the special edition); True Lies ran 2 hours, 21 minutes; and Titanic ran 3 hours, 14 minutes. So 3 hours plus seems quite possible.
Not only are there issues with IMAX, since a platter can only hold up to 160 minutes, but I get the feeling not everyone would be able to sit through a three hour, 3D movie. I know I won't mind, but my eyes don't get strained watching 3D. Is this even plausible or likely? Would you sit through three hours of 3D?