‘The Avengers’ is Longer Than Any Other Marvel Studios Movie

Published 3 years ago by

avengers movie poster The Avengers is Longer Than Any Other Marvel Studios Movie

There are less than two months until Marvel Studios releases The Avengers into theaters and at this point, there’s not too much more the studio and director Joss Whedon are willing to show in the marketing. We had The Avengers Super Bowl spot which won the attention from fans among all of the movie-related commercials during the big game, the latest trailer which debuted in 3D this weekend on prints of John Carter in theaters and an endless amount of fan-made trailers, including our own Avengers mashup.

While there’s still uncertainty surrounding the villainous army featured in the film, even after a series of trailers, images of tie-in merchandise and TV commercials, we now at least have an idea of how long the film will be.

Collider had a chance to speak with Whedon at SXSW for The Cabin in the Woods premiere and like most interviews with the director of The Avengers, questions didn’t always stay on topic and Whedon shared some info on how long we can expect to sit in theaters for Marvel’s epic team-up flick.

“My first cut was three hours long and it’s now down to 2 hours and 15 minutes, and I’m extremely proud of that. I had always intended to go over two, under two and a half. There was no way a movie with this many great actors and this much epic scope was gonna clock in under two and not feel a little anemic, somebody wasn’t gonna get their moment if that happened. But at the same time, I get very angry that romantic comedies run over two hours long, it’s like ‘Guys, that’s not okay.’ More isn’t more. I don’t want anything in the movie that shouldn’t be.”

For comparison, Whedon says The Avengers is currently 135 minutes, a little longer than previous Marvel Studios films:

  • Iron Man: 126 minutes
  • The Incredible Hulk: 112 minutes
  • Iron Man 2: 124 minutes
  • Thor: 114 minutes
  • Captain America: The first Avenger: 124 minutes

So, there’s an extra 10 minutes there to re-intro the characters. As for the 45 minutes cut so far, Whedon explains it’s content that he loves, stuff that would be great on TV where there’s time for content to doesn’t necessarily move the plot forward. So, will it show up on the home video releases?

“No [there won’t be a director’s cut on the DVD]. I… believe very strongly in putting the director’s cut into the theaters. I believe that the director’s cut is the best movie for the studio and the best version of the movie for the audience. I’ve never really been in a situation where I had to pull the beating heart out of something that I did. I think people get to see a lot of extraordinary extras because I did shoot a bunch of stuff that I love, but the movie is the movie I want it to be.”

I would disagree with the best film for studio being synonymous with best film for the audience, but we can agree three hours is too long. When it comes to The Avengers it’s safe to say fans would love to see all of the movie whether it be through an extended edition of the complete film or through deleted scenes. Don’t be surprised to see re-releases of the Blu-rays which include it at some point in the future.

The Avengers stars Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson, Cobie Smulders, Clark Gregg, Tom Hiddleston and Stellan Skarsgard. It is of course written and directed by Joss Whedon, opening in theaters on May 4, 2012.




Follow me on Twitter @rob_keyes.

Source: Collider



Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Dam was hoping this would be 3h :/

  2. I’ll never understand people saying 3 hours is too long.I simply can’t agree with that. I’d gladly sit down to watch a 3 hour film. Since when does more footage for the same price a bad thing? Do you also tell your cable company “I’ll pay the 40 bucks but just give me 300 instead of 400. Some of the best movies have been 3 hours long. That doesn’t mean all three hour films will be amazing but it certainly proves that 3 hours is not to0 long in general. The only way three hours is too long is if the movie sucks. If it’s good though 3 hours is great it’s more of something you like a lot.

    • If it’s a good movie, nothing. If it’s a great movie stick an intermission in there and give us 4 hrs! BUT if it’s a bad movie, an extra hour or more is just wasting my time when I could be doing anything else.

    • Same here,how can it be too long if its a great Movie ?
      Amen to that Brother !

    • When a director, or reviewer, or film fan says “3 hours is too long,” they’re not saying “I think there are zero people who would want

      • My browser decided to refresh in the middle of my sentence, and posted an unfinished comment.

        they’re not saying “I think there are zero people who would want a 3 hour movie.” They’re saying “when you take all the audience into consideration, 3 hours of explosions and exposition gets to be a little much.” Dark of the Moon is a good example…at 154 minutes long, it started to feel like an incessant grind 3/4 through.

        Yes, you and me and a group of people out there would like a 3 hour Avengers film…but movies are around 90 minutes-two hours for a very good reason…a hundred years of film experience has ironed out what a good time frame is for a cinema experience. What you personally prefer or enjoy doesn’t always reflect what works best in the larger picture.

  3. Shoulda stuck with three hours amy less isn’t long enough to pack in all the awesome this movie should have

  4. I don’t have a problem with long movies, as long as the movie keeps moving on and the extra length actually adds something to the film. I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, but I also think the extended versions filled things in a bit more and made them closer to the books. Whether The Avengers is 2:15 or 3 hours, I just hope it’s as great a movie that the trailers make it seem to be.

  5. I’d be disappointed that there won’t be a directors cut but we know studios will want to bank on this so they’ll most likely release an extended version.

  6. I’d rather have a great two hour and 15 minute movie than an okay three hour movie that felt like dragged at times.

  7. not so bad, it just means we wont see alot of banter between the gang, and the bromance stuff will come much faster (leading to a big conclusion quicker). i just hope they don’t follow every other marvel movie and make the end battle like 10 minutes long (which i fear might happen), that is what ruined all the recent marvel movies for me – anti-climatic ‘boss’ fights >:(

    i can see why he cut so much out, for instance there was so much crap in ironoman 2 that was unnecessary and stupid (romance bs, sub plots etc). with that being said, it wouldn’t be bad to see a version where conversations are a little longer.

  8. well, as a movie hound who likes superheroes, i think it’s hard to get anyone to do anything for 3 hours. the lord of the rings did it, but they were mindbogglingly dense in plot and effects, so no one wanted to miss anything. the current batman cycle has pulled 2+1/2 hours each, so i think if the story and acting (not explosions and wisecracks) held up, you could go that long. when i was a kid, my parents took me to gandhi, that thing had a g.d. intermission. let’s face it, people other than marvel zombies like me and other commenters here will be annoyed by 2+1/4 hours if they’re a parent or date humoring who they’re with. people get bored. frankly, i give kudos to joss whedon for taking most of the fat out, as most extras and extended whatevers are junk. iron man was 2:06, let’s hope for 2:20.

  9. Would it even be Whedon’s choice whether the footage is in the DVD/BD?

    I gotta say I disagree with him on the director’s cut / theatrical release issue. Even if I like the theatrical release better, it’s still cool to see the cut footage. T2 and Aliens being two examples of movies that I like the final theatrical version best, but I still liked the extra scenes on special editions.

    • that is unless it’s one of those unfinished scenes with only wireframes for the CGI, etc. Then I just don’t see the point in this type of movie.

  10. Thor to Stark: “You remind me of myself once, Tony of Stark. Arrogant and brash.”

    Stark replies in mock surprise, “Oh really? And then happened, big boy? No, no…let me guess. Let’s see….You were sent down to Earth as a form of punishment?”

    Thor laughs,”Indeed, my friend. And with you, I get the feeling my penance is yet complete!”

  11. Take John Carter…I thought it was OK…but I would have liked it even more if it’s not too damn long.

  12. NEW AVENGERS POSTER just posted on twitter: (features Cap and Hawkeye)

  13. I think 2 hrs/ 15 mins. is a good amount of time for the final cut. Aslong as the film turns out great. TDK was what, 2 1/2 hours long? The more ive watched that film, there were scenes that seemed to slowed it down alittle. 3 hrs i think would be a stretch for any CBM unless it was made really, really good.

  14. I honestly would have been very happy with a three hour long Avengers movie, but to be honest most people do not want to sit in a theatre for that long so i can understand why they would not want to make it last three hours. I on the other hand would welcome it. This movie has so many characters and so much to potentially offer that going into it knowing it was that long would put my mind at ease. I was really hoping this movie would run closer to 2 1/2 hours but i’ll take knowing that its the longest of the marvel movies so far.

  15. Personally I have my worries about doing only 2 hours and 15 minutes as well and getting everything crammed up in there. But seeing how tactfully X2 was done in 133 minutes leaving us all eager for more, I think that might also be Whedon’s intention. Whet our appetite. Leave when ovation’s the loudest not when your viewers have had their fill. So far as people are not dissatisfied with, let’s say, the length/quality of the climax (eg in Thor)or the general script and average screen time, I think we’ll be fine. There’s always the risk of burning out and killing any zeal for individual sequels in the near future. Spiderman 3 did that for many and it was 139mins.

  16. Fret not, fellas and enjoy the ride. 3 hours of The Avengers may have turned from pleasure to punishment. Whedon knows the material he’s got for us. Maybe he knew it’d have bored us stiff or maybe he would’ve been over-doing the script.

  17. A good movie is a good movie, it’s all in how you utilize the time that you’re workin with. There are very few movies where I’d say that a longer running time would have made it a better film, it could have been just a smaller amongst a larger one unrepairable by the adjustment of only one variable. Lord Of the Rings was a far more detailed piece of fiction (not to mention it’s a book) than The Avengers material, so many things required a longer running time.

    • *a smaller problem.

  18. 3 hours would have been fine, yes people complain about 3 hours being a bench mark for too long, but Schindler’s List is a 3 hour film and that works, admittedly it is Schindler’s List…. but with trailers and what not you will still be in the theatre for 3 hours regardless, so I don’t see the problem with that actually being 3 hours of film with a little bit of trailers at the start

  19. how much of that is final credits?

  20. I just read that, because of the cuts, the movie won’t be from Cap’s point of view anymore.
    Whedon said that a lot of those 45 minute cuts were of Captain America.

    Although, he did say the audience will still be relating to Cap the most (since he’s the fish out of water).

  21. It’s more “bum’s on seats” as many times a day as they can.

    Anyone remember “Intermission”?

  22. Well I have something to say about re-watchability especially if you use LOTR series as an example. The first time I watched the movies in theaters the lengths were fine the first seemed just a touch long. On rewatching them at home in marathon mode the same thing first time ..OK. However after about a month or two break sitting down and watching them again.. Well by the first third of the third one I was wondering why someone hadn’t invented a blast furnace! Yeah lava melts just about everything but who in their right mind would bother to tolerate or invent magic lava that it takes 6+ hours of celluloid to get to? So I guess I’m saying length could effect re-watchability even in an engrossing story line.

    • I think it was Rex Reed who once said that a movie shouldn’t be longer than two hours. He may have been just talking about boredom setting in, but I think it could be a health issue with most people. Blood clots can start to form in the legs and eventually lead to a heart attack. People on planes and even marathon video-game players have died from this.

    • That’s how I feel about TDK… every time I watch it again, I just stop paying attention to how good it is, and start focusing on all the plot-holes.
      So I guess, the length of a movie can, in certain circumstances, affect the re-viewing of a movie.

      • Plot-holes? PLOT-HOLES?!?! You sir, have besmirched the good name that is Christopher of Nolan! Now you shall fell the full wrath that will be wrought against you by the Nolanites! Your doom is nigh!

        • *feel…(sigh)…oh how an edit button would have come in handy.

  23. The new Japanese trailer has some fantastic tidbits of new film, including better glimpses of the aliens & their ships, and the helicarrier lifting out of the water.

  24. No, no, and no. No I say. Two hours and fifteen minutes is a bit of a rip off I think. A one word sum up of what the hype has been for this movie is its “epicness”. Epicness deserves closer to three hours than two. Everyone feel free to use my new word, “epicness”.

    • Like I said, more doesn’t automatically equal better. A movie being epic doesn’t require a 3 hour run time. I’d rather have a shorter movie that flows and is well constructed than a longer one that drags in parts. I know, not everyone is a writer, and not everyone cares about the craft & quality of the thing, but trust me it makes a difference even for people who aren’t paying attention to those aspects.

      • +1

  25. 2:15 sounds good, too long does get bad after re-watching the longs ones, I ended up losing interest in it due to some of the things I kept noticing that did not belong.

  26. actually it’s only the longest in the marvel cinematic universe because the old film hulk with eric bana was 138 minutes longer then this. I wish this film was 2 hours and 30 minutes it’s gonna be like the dark knight rises only 2 hours and 15 minutes great films with horrible running times i bet the amazing spider man is longer then both of these. Spider man 3 was longer also being 139 minutes so fans like me remember the old films too

  27. i just figured something out: disney doesn’t like movies that will be amazing!
    john carter which i pretty much thought wasn’t good because of romance which was 3/4 of the movie it had the big battle in the final 15 minutes which i hate that film was 2 hours and 12 minutes and it didn’t do good in box office or reviews look at the hunger games ( yes i did read the book) it has been in the lead for 3 weeks and is great but like all adaptations the book still wins, it was 2 hours and 22 minutes and i thought it needed more the avengers will do good at the box office but the 2 hours and 15 minutes running time is worrying me it should be at least 2 hours and 30 minutes harry potter has always been long and nobody complained so why do people complain about wanting intermissons the films are there so watch them if they are over 3 hours then i’ll need a intermisson but come on the film should be 2 hours and 15 minutes it will be rated pg-13 even though it hasn’t been rated

    • dang dude. reading that was like playing ping-pong against a crackhead.

  28. It’s a mistake to not release an extended edition DVD for a movie like this. Lord of the Rings EE is a perfect example. It doesn’t need to be a “directors cut” … Call it an extended cut.

  29. It’s a mistake to not release an extended edition DVD for a movie like this. Lord of the Rings EE is a perfect example.