^I'm guessing I'll like it more the second time too... I still have to get used to the new feel of it since they changed directors and composers. It's kind of funny though, because all the stuff that I thought would bug me didn't bug me as much.

My current theory is that because I know the book so well, the non-book stuff kind of threw me.

I subscribe to this theory. It is why I kept telling people to let go of the book & expectations and just watch & enjoy the movie. It really is a good movie.

^Well said, rjefvh!

The pacing is probably the most disappointing part of the entire film to me. How many times did I have to stop and cry "SLOW DOWN! WAIT FOR ME! I'M LOST!" It felt like Narrowhaven, Magician's Island, and Ramandu's Island were only about 10 minutes each. I'm crossing my fingers for an extended edition to the film, and even if that doesn't slow down the pace, it might help me catch my breath.

Therefore, it's a fantastic movie, but still has a weak spot on pacing.

Yes, I thought everything was zipping by too fast, like we were watching it from a train.

I just got done watching The Last Airbender on DVD (yes its as bad as they say) and afterwards decided to take a read of it's associated trivia page on IMDB to see if there was anything interesting to know about the movie - and one particular piece of information particularly jumped out at me in relation to VDT and its short running time.

Unfortunately IMDB does not provide any references for the trivia section, so there is no way to verify the authenticity of any information presented in it - given that alot of the trivia seemed to be somewhat apologetic in nature (as if it was providing excuses as to the movie's many failings) it could just as easily be stuff added by fans to try and defend the movie, rather than being information taken from official interviews or articles. However, taking this quote at face value i think it raises an interesting question.

IMDB Trivia Page for "The Last Airbender" (2010)
Almost 30 minutes of footage was cut from the movies theatrical release because Paramount Pictures wanted to make the version converted to 3D as short as possible in an effort to save money. They had all ready invested over 150 million dollars into the movies production

If that is true, and that Paramount Pictures really did cut 30mins out of The Last Airbender to save money on the 3D Conversion costs, could that also explain why VDT is so desperately short?

Apparently Prime Focus, the company who converted VDT to 3D typically charge between $74,000 to $110,000 per minute for 3D conversion. Given those sorts of prices, it could be very easy to see why Fox wouldn't want the film to run for more than 2 hours - and so perhaps they forced the short run time on the director and editor.

In the case of a film like The Last Airbender, an extra 30 minutes wouldn't of made any real difference to the quality of the overall product (it's problems ran far deeper to the sheer awfulness of the script) but in the case of VDT an extra 20-30 minutes could of made the world of difference to the quality of the movie, and so i think it would be an absolute tragedy if the cripplingly short run time of the movie had been enforced upon them in order to facilitate a 3D conversion that was artistically unnecessary and (seemingly) of no real financial benefit to the box-office takings.

That of course is all theorising, but it would be interesting to see if there was any truth to it.

^That's just it.

The one thing that keeps popping up is that FOX may have forced them to have a shorter runtime... although I've yet to see any verification of this.

I wish we could get some verification, but if it is true then it may be FOX's biggest mistake with this movie, and possibly most of it's movies. The other would be the marketing.

We know there were scenes deleted... the question was how many and why.

On the upside, the pacing made one person happy, my aunt, which rather suprised me... well no two of us are a like.

For me it went a lot smoother the second time, although I don't know why, but if SC gets greenlit- FOX had better prepare for a 2 and a half hour movie, or something close to it.

Meh. Fox Studio has a track record of ruining decent/good films with their attempts to make a film shorter and more "accessible" to the causal film-goers. Tom Rothman, CEO of Fox, has been disliked for his constant demand to cut a film under two hours to allow more theater showing and for greater commercial appeal. I mean look at X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Kingdom of Heaven. I doubt Narnia escaped the intense editing scrutiny of the studio to make it more commercially appealing, dumping the cerebral elements in the process.

You know what? We definitely should make a petition for a extended version to be released!

I agree! And if there is merit to this we should make one that says SC (and the rest) has to be at least 2 hrs and 15 min!

For me the pacing was so bad, I felt lost and confused. We didn't get to know any of the characters, or really see any of the wonderful places they were visiting. I could barely keep track of what island they were on, because they hopped from one to another so quickly.

Those islands must have been about 5 minutes of sailing time apart from eachother.

~Riella

.....
If that is true, and that Paramount Pictures really did cut 30mins out of The Last Airbender to save money on the 3D Conversion costs, could that also explain why VDT is so desperately short?

Apparently Prime Focus, the company who converted VDT to 3D typically charge between $74,000 to $110,000 per minute for 3D conversion. Given those sorts of prices, it could be very easy to see why Fox wouldn't want the film to run for more than 2 hours - and so perhaps they forced the short run time on the director and editor......

That of course is all theorising, but it would be interesting to see if there was any truth to it.

Wow, I just wandered in here and read your post about the conversion costs and wonder if Fox really would make back the cost of conversion? All of the 3D screens were removed from my local theatre last weekend so I wonder if the 3D conversion and versions of the movie substantially helped Fox make any more profit than it was worth to convert the film. Probably did help some I guess. But if it was cut to allow conversion costs, then ugh!

If it was cut for 3D, that would be depressing. It would be even worse if the 3D didn't even help the movie make more money. So I hope that if that it is case, the movie made enough money to cover the 3D costs.

The pacing seemed really off to me. There was so much stuff they could have done but didn't. Although I agree that Narrowhaven left questions unanswered, it was torture enough watching it that I'm not sure I would want to see more (unless it is classic stuff from the book). The movie seemed either too rush or too drawn out depending on the scene. The sea serpent battle was way too long. As nice as the wide views of the ship and sailing were, they really seemed to take away from plot and character development. The whole Caspian / Edmund sparring scene could have been cut and that time given to developing the plot. For a movie that was supposed to correct against the episodic nature of the book, it sure felt like isolated incidents thrown together.

Cutting the movie to save money on the 3D conversion would make a lot of sense to me. I would completely understand that, and although I disagree with the decision it makes sense. Imagine if they had to spend $74,000 per minute for an additional 30 minutes. VDT's profit would have meant half as much as it means now, and for no benefits (where the 3D conversion is concerned.)

Since the holiday movie profits this year were awful compared to previous years, I hope this will persuade Hollywood to cut the 3D nonsense. Audiences are getting burned out and I believe (although I can't prove) this is partly why so many films that were meant to be blockbusters underwhelmed in 2010.

Why does Hollywood believe that every movie will benefit from 3D? And if VDT's run time was slashed because of the unnecessary conversion, then it's a real pity that they'd sacrifice the quality of their film (which is permanent) for a temporary boost in revenue during its theatrical run.

I don't know if the cost of 3D conversion was a factor, but I always felt like the movie had "big studio editing" written all over it: Fast and choppy. I felt like there must've been at least 20 minutes cut out of the movie.

Now, it appears there will only be five minutes of deleted scenes on the Blu-ray. My question: Is this all of them? I wonder if Fox decided to only include some of the deleted scenes so that they wouldn't have to add a second disc.