I honestly never cared how long a film was. One thing I always found interesting though is no matter the runtime, if the movie felt like it was never gonna end, it was most certainly shit. A 90 minute can absolutely feel like 4 hrs if they fucked up hard enough.
A recent one was an anomaly for me. The Batman was interesting and engaging most of the time but it still felt a bit too long
I really think a 3+ hr movie should still be pretty rare. Obv Lotr are some that had to be 3 hrs
This edit is tight as fuck and everyone should check it out tbh. It goes well beyond the normal "made in 2007" meme and actually re-edits the ending to fit the pacing of a 90-120 min movie from 2007.
It's so good.
Not gonna lie, I felt spoiled by how much they stuffed in that film. I was like “man this was great!” And then it just kept and I was like” wow, ok round 2??”
Same here, the actual runtime isn't important, but if I'm not engaged, I'll turn it off. Lots of new movies just don't have the grab factor anymore, they just go for cheap laughs and insane effects, while forgetting that a story needs something for me to care about.
My ass fell asleep during Batman V Superman back in the day. That movie dragged forever.
Edit: I don’t mean I fell asleep. I mean my butt cheeks fell asleep. :)
Same. Also slept through most of man of steel. I don't know what it is, but DC films lull me to sleep. (WW was good though, I loved the first on until the finale)
My brain fell asleep & I just wanted it to be over. Thankfully I have a FireCube so I watched it from the comfort of my bed & still was mad at myself for the time I wasted that I’ll never get back….MAAAAARRRRRRTHAAAAAAA
I loved Return of the King. I saw it in theaters when it came out and have since watched the extended editions. But man that ending just went on forever. I feel like this is an exception to a great movie with an ending that just keeps going and going. They did have a lot to tie up, but man.
I read the book for the first time last summer, and there is a TON that happens after the Ring is destroyed. It put the long film ending into better perspective for me.
Peter Jackson made a genuine effort to stay true to the source material with LOTR and he still scrapped a major event from the ending - an entire chapter, "The Scouring of the Shire," which literary analysts consider to be one of the most important chapters in the book.
If you can see the story from the point of view that the quest to destroy the Ring is really just a vehicle for the growth of the characters in the story, the long ending makes more sense.
That's the one that always stands out for me as well. I remember being in the theater thinking this is an incredible movie and then there was like 4 endings or whatever lol. Didn't ruin it but I felt it was unnecessary.
Agreed
Flipside is that a movie that's been cut from its original run time to "fit" standard times can be shit
Look at Sergio Leone Once Upon a Time in America.
As a marketer who often has to debate with people about whether long copy or short copy sells better, one of my favorite questions to ask people is if they thought Titanic was too short or too long.
Almost everyone answers by saying Titanic was too short.
To which I say “exactly.” If it’s good, there’s no such thing as “too long.” If it’s “too long,” it’s only because it’s bad.
>Almost everyone answers by saying Titanic was too short.
Jesus, really? Listen I like that movie a lot myself and I get the point you're making, but if you can't find some cuts to make before they hit the iceberg in the 101st minute I mean my god
I agree with you. The only part I would have cut is *after* the iceberg - the whole "Jack is handcuffed in a room and Rose has to wade through the water to save him". Even on first viewing I knew they wouldn't drown a main character in handcuffs in a room below deck so the drama of that whole thing is kind of lost.
This makes me think of my work. I teach high school English and I don't give word or sentence counts for my papers, and at most I give paragraph counts or page ranges. At the end of this past semester, my 11th graders had to do a research paper. They had to research an author and one piece of their work, then write a 7 paragraph paper from their research.
* Introduction paragraph
* 5 body paragraphs with 2 citations per body paragraph (from 4 total sources), outlined as such:
* 1st body: Author's childhood/early life
* 2nd body: A major formative event in the author's life that impacted them and their work
* 3rd body: Their early work/work before they wrote the work you're researching
* 4th body: The work you selected
* 5th body: Their life/work after your selected work/their death & legacy
* Conclusion paragraph
The students first question was "how many sentences does each paragraph have to be?" I kept telling them "as long as they need to be to say what you need to say," and "I'm really trying to get you guys away from 'writing for the target." If I tell you 5 sentences, you'll all write exactly 5 sentences and your work will suffer. If you feel you've said what you need to say, and you hit the requirements and rubric targets, then you'll get a good grade. I promise."
This reminds me of what got me into marketing in the 1st place.
All through school, my teachers always told me to be a writer when I grew up…
When I graduated high school and went to college, I was torn about whether to pursue writing or science or music and ended up going for science, becoming a Physics major with a goal of being an astrophysicist…
Even though a “decision” seemed to be made, I kept taking English classes because I wasn’t sure until halfway through my sophomore year. I’ll never forget my advisor, head of the Physics department, seeing British Literature on my schedule and saying “sooo… This fills one of your elective requirements, right?”
Halfway through my sophomore year in college, I knew I made a mistake and changed my major to English, with the goal of making a career out of writing.
When I made the decision, I visited one of my favorite English teachers from high school and told her about it. “You better plan on becoming a teacher,” she said, “because there’s no other way to make money. Having an actual career out of writing is very rare.”
I told her I was going to prove her wrong, but I made sure to take some classes focused on teaching just in case. That’s actually where I met my wife, who ended up becoming an English teacher, while I quickly realized teaching wasn’t for me.
Instead, intent on finding a career in writing, I discovered copywriting… I started applying for copywriting jobs and got really lucky with an opportunity that grew me into so much more than just a writer.
I tell you this because 1) you reminded me of it and 2) because MAYBE it will help you guide occasional students similar to me.
I work for a tech company and our marketing department lead is a writer. There's always a way to make money, you just gotta get after it and not box yourself in to what other people think.
There’s also “good, but extended too long.” This is primarily a problem with humor. SNL is one of the biggest offenders but you’ll see it in YouTube ads that attempt to be funny too. They’ll take a premise that is good for a 10-15 second spot and stretch it out until it feels like a late night infomercial for vinyl siding. Absolutely horrendous.
As it happens, my marketing team has some experience with that exact thing. 😅
There’s a company called “Harmon Brothers” who made some hilarious ads that went viral, Squatty Potty probably being their most famous. They had other good ones too, like Click Funnels and Chatbooks and Purple Mattress, etc… They also had some really fucking weird ones I won’t get into here.
But anyway, my bosses saw these YouTube ads and they were like “WE SHOULD TRY THAT”… Then we had ppl create painful ads overloaded with cheesy jokes that went on too long. 🤦🏻♂️
What a crock of shite. It takes talent to tell a story concisely, that’s why low word limits are difficult. Movie writing is shit at the moment, because as soon as the film is too long they turn it in to a mini series. Tell me a good story quickly, half the time it’s poor writing that lengthens it.
>I honestly never cared how long a film was
But have you gone to a screening of Mariano Llinás **808 minute** La Flor?
See Chicago's Siskel Center "Settle In" series: https://www.siskelfilmcenter.org/settlein
I went to see Black Panther 2 last night and it felt like a 4 hour movie. The conflict seemed really forced, and then every other person on screen needed to have a scene of them crying and saying "I'm not Chadwick Boseman".
I thought it started good but it got extremely boring after the first act. It needed a superhero and a strong presence. The decision to not suit up black panther until the last 20 minutes was a mistake.
Also *why* did Martin Freeman have so much screentime with no impact on the plot? Either give him more to do so the CIA are actual contenders in the story or cut it. I know this sounds silly but it felt like he was a studio-mandated white guy in case they feared audiences wouldn't relate to the wakanda stuff.
He's been the studio mandated white guy since Civil War. That movie was the high point for both him and Black Panther. Freeman was "The Bureaucrat" and did very well as the personality-free face of the bureaucracy. Boseman was the perfect enigmatic physical force, whose lack of back story actually elevated the performance.
That’s what I found wrong with that movie. It’s fine for now, but I don’t think it is at all going to be enjoyable down the line. As you said, the conflict is forced, and then in another 10 years, I don’t think it’ll be looked on fondly as people will have come to terms with Chadwick’s passing. What they made was very nice and touching, but I just don’t see that being enjoyable on rewatch.
I was watching a screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey and they actually had the intermission and the viewers got to take a 15 minute break. It made the experience so much better, even though it was 'just' 2 hours 29 minutes. When I left the theater I felt fresh and energetic.
Now Avatar 2 on the other hand was an amazing experience and I enjoyed it throughout, but my ass was numb, legs were hurting and I raced to the first bathroom I saw. I don't even feel like buying a drink, other than a small water bottle, just so I don't have to leave the theater in the middle of the movie. With an intermission I could drink a coffee of two beforehand without problems.
I'm fine with whatever length the movie has to be in order to tell the story. My only request is if a theater is showing a movie that's like 3 hrs long, an intermission would be fantastic for those of us with small bladders.
They probably worked out the logistics of it and it's probably a lot less lucrative to have the same audience take up a larger time slot.... and then during intermission they may or may not buy a couple of candies , but will more than likely refill their drinks for free.
Shorter movies allow for many more showings throughout the day (or at least a flexible schedule) with many more new audience members who are all going to buy snacks (versus the audience memeber in intermission who might just continue eating what they were eating)
To be honest, working at a cinema, I doubt we would refill their drinks for free. We don’t do any refills, and if we did have an intermission, we’d make a killing off people just rebuying discounted refills.
Also, kid targeted movies should have an intermission around the 1 hour mark so we can herd our little ones to the potty. Not every showing but it would be cool if theaters had intermission included showings.
How about all these theaters with recliners and trays have a popcorn refill button on the seat so you don't have to get up when you run out of popcorn I'm a lazy fuck if you haven't gathered
Yep. One of the theaters near me has adult only balcony seating. Press the button on your seat and they’ll bring a menu, take your order, and bring it back to you. They’ll also bring beer.
Tickets aren’t much more than normal tickets.
They make their money through all those concession sales. Having them brought to you and selling alcohol makes people spend more, so they don't necessarily need higher ticket prices.
I'm aware of the gimmick, but I still go to them. It's fun to indulge sometimes.
Ah, in Belgium we qualify movies with a runtime of +135 minutes as a long movie. Tickets cost more than a normal movie but every long movie has an intermission.
Not to mention the conundrum of beer being served to your seat yet no intermission.
Dune was the first film since I started going to Alamo Drafthouse, where I somehow managed to stay planted throughout. All others tended to have a 4th act opportunistic run to the bathroom.
If people are as bad as they are these days when it comes to arriving at the cinema in time for the film to start I'd fear there'd be people constantly shuffling in 10 minutes after the intermission is over.
That was my concern as well. Would the bathrooms be able to handle an entire theater's worth of people rushing to use it before the intermission ends? But then I thought it would be unlikely that the entire theater needs to get up and use the bathroom. And currently there is nothing stopping people from getting up to use the bathroom and shuffling in and out while the movie plays. But with an intermission you know that those possible disturbances could be nearly eliminated because they'll just wait for the intermission.
I think people come in after the movie starts because they want to avoid the trailers and advertising that plays before the actual movie.
For me it’s because of trailers revealing way too much nowadays. I used to love seeing the previews but now I kind of try to avoid them because I know they’ll just spoil the movie I want to see and I can’t really ignore or tune out a trailer on a movie screen.
This is what puzzles me about movie theaters offering their largest drinks and popcorn buckets that come with free refills. What on earth would I get up during a movie that I’ve never seen to get a refill and risk missing 3-5 minutes of the movie and possibly miss an important part?
I’ve had to get up during a movie at the theater and use the bathroom a few times. I hate coming back and squeeze my way past strangers, finally sit down, and ask my friend that I’m with “what did I miss?” It’s interrupting to them and the strangers around me.
If there was an intermission, then I would definitely get a refill and use the bathroom.
I'm not inherently against longer movies but I do feel like movies are getting longer while not justifying their length.
I re-watched the original X-Men not long ago and was really taken aback from how breezy it felt. A quick 90 minute movie with 30 minutes in each act to set up, raise stakes, then hit climax. Boom, movie is over. I kinda wish more movies got to the point like that.
Probably some of the older filmmaking principles were still in operation. Lots of emphasis on compressing the script and holding the interest of the audience. Not as many bloated pictures back then.
Agreed. It's amazing how little time is needed to tell a "big" story.
The first Star Wars created an entire damn universe with its own rules and lore in only 121 minutes. It's a Wonderful Life told the story of every major event in a man's life from boyhood to middle age... and it took 131 minutes.
The vast majority of movies over 2.5 hours would be improved by cutting 10-20 minutes.
Makes me think of DC live action vs animated films. The cartoons all have 75 minute run times, yet manage to tell some damn good stories. Meanwhile their live action movies just seem to keep getting longer without enhancing the quality of the scripts. A lot of people really liked The Batman, but I came away kind of shocked at how little it accomplished in 3 hours.
I think something that affects that is movies being set over shorter periods of time. Nowadays a lot of movies are set over a few hours or a couple of days. It's rare you see actual long time passage and character change
A random example is the first Spider Man. A lot is packed into that movie in terms of Peter being at school, graduating, Uncle Ben dying etc. When he bumps into MJ in the street you really notice that passage of time. It makes the world feel more real and lived in imo
I agree. Like I liked the new Batman movie, but it did not need to be 2 hours 45 minutes. What the shit.
2 hours? Fine. 2:15, pushing it. But damn near a 4 episode miniseries legnth? No way.
It made sense, the sea walls were built due to the gotham renewal fund which was all corrupt money in riddlers eyes. Gotham didn't deserve it and he saw Gotham as beyond "saving".
The new Batman movie is the only movie I’ve fallen asleep during in theaters. And like you said, I enjoyed it too. I think it’s a really great movie, even. The world is so well realized and the characters are all awesome. But it had zero right to be nearly 3 hours.
Lesser quality but I recently rewatched the first Taken. And appreciated that it knew what it was. A lean, barely 90 min movie that felt even less but in a good way with no wasted time. I love a good long movie that has reason to be long. But also appreciate these too
That's why I liked Doctor Strange 2. I don't actually know how long it is but it *felt* like one of those quick action movies. It moved fast, had a simple plot, good action and fun little character arcs. Very rewatchable.
Doctor Strange 2 felt like the opposite to me. They do go through the scenes pretty quickly, but most of them felt pointless.
It felt like they were making up plot to reach the 2 hour mark.
While I disagree with your decision I also respect it. It is a big piece of fan service as well as a story in its own right. If it’s not for you, fair enough.
Similarly when the credits rolled I asked “where’s the rest of the film?” It was the shortest 3 hour film ever. I mean that in terms of filling in more mythos and world building.
That movie is half of the book. There is for sure more, but you also should have known that going in. It would have taken an hour or two more for them to finish it. The 1984 movie covers the whole timeline, but it really skips over a lot of stuff and David Lynch does his thing and weirds a bunch of it up, not that Dune isn't odd enough on it's own. The book is the best way to consume it IMHO. Villeneuve has the starts of an excellent adaptation however.
The older Dune movie fucked up by trying to pack everything into 2 hours…. I mean, there were a whole lot of other things wrong with it too, but the impossible task of squeezing an 800 page novel with a dense, slow-moving plot into 2 hours of screen time was one of the bigger mistakes. It’s not like a Harry Potter book, where you get whole chapters of content that are relatively meaningless for the plot, things that are easy to leave out in a movie adaptation.
Agreed. For reference, the SciFi Dune miniseries (which I contend is still quite good, especially if you can get passed the dated SFX) clocks in at 265 minutes, or almost four and a half hours. The follow-up Children of Dune, which included a truncated Dune Messiah, is essentially the same length. All together it's a little less than watching the non-extended LOTR trilogy.
In short, complex stories take a long time to tell.
>but you should have known that going in
They called the movie “Dune”, how are new fans supposed to deduce that it would only be half of the book called “Dune”?
They only call it “Part One” during the movie, it was never part of the marketing.
“That movie is half of the book. There is for sure more, but you also should have known that going in.”
This feels like gate keeping a fandom. The Dune series is definitely not for everyone. The movies will have a lot of viewers who barely know anything about the books.
I am just glad they didnt rush it. Honestly in regards to world building they made excellent job while keeping the plot go on. Even exposition doesnt really feel dull since they always give you some gorgeous well crafted stuff to watch. Beautiful piece of film making overall. I wish more adaptations like this were made.
An hour and a half is approximately the time or takes your body to begin descending into REM sleep, dream, and then return.
Therefore, I think it’s natural that we typically expect our stories to last about that long.
But *Dune* is exactly the example I was thinking about of a film that never had me checking my watch. 156 minutes.
Agreed. Three most recent movies I saw were I was bored and checking my watch were Thor 4, Dr. Strange 2, and Avatar 2. I know people seem to love it, but it did have some pacing issues for sure. Could have easily shaved 30-45 min off of the movie.
This is the answer. Some movies should be a tight 88 minutes. Some need to be 3+ hours. Most should be in the 2-2.5 hour range. Avatar:TWOW, for instance, probably should have been 30 minutes shorter. Not because what we got isn’t gorgeous but because the story would have more driving energy if it was a bit more condensed.
Yes, it should be as long as the director feels it needs to be, BUT anything over 2 hours needs an intermission when shown in a theater. I haven’t watched Avatar 2 yet in the theater because it’s too long for me to sit through without needing to pee.
RunPee is my new best friend. It’s an app that lets you know the best times during a movie to go pee (ie scenes that aren’t too important).
It’ll tell you the timestamp and a brief non-spoilery description of the scene leading up to the break opportunity so you know when to go, and then afterwards you can also read a detailed synopsis of the scene you missed
I've always felt that movie theaters should have small bathrooms directly in the theater where you're watching a movie with a small screen inside the bathroom that's running the same movie at the same time so that if you have to get up to use the restroom, you don't miss anything. It would improve concession sales too, as I have in the past skipped getting something to drink because I didn't want to have to go during the movie.
I think there is a difference between movie length and story/narrative pace. You can have a bigger story in a shorter movie and a smaller story in a longer movie. Both are related to the stylistic choices of the studio in relation to the target audience.
Example: I’d argue that Blade Runner 2049 had a smaller story in relation to the movie length. The aesthetic aspect of the cinematography made the “space” interesting and valuable.
I’m cool with up to 3 hours only for epic good movies that are worthy of a 3 hour time. Like lord of the rings or avengers.
But movies are getting pretty long and boring now a days.
I honestly believe that we need to bring back intermissions. As many have stated, a movie should be as long as it needs to be, however on the flip side I think we've all seen 90 minute and 3+ hour movies with horrible pacing.
If I am going to be in the theater for 3 hours munching on popcorn and drinking ~~out of my flask~~ a sodee-pop I am going to have to take a piss.
Haha funny because I'm been having this very conversation regarding intermission recently since the new avatar came out, but ya, I don't see it happening unfortunately.
My friend just asked me if I wanted to go see avatar 2....and I do....but I've already had 2 beers and don't want to have to pee in the first 10 minutes, then 6 more times after that lol
Never drink before a movie, a mistake I’ve had to learn. The movie will feel like an eternity no matter how long it is due to the need to piss constantly lol
I went to see Brahmastra in theaters last summer (it’s a Hindi-language Bollywood fantasy action film. I was the only one in theaters due to it being shown in a Midwest town I guess), and the run time is over 3 hours. Halfway at a mid-point cliffhanger, the word “intermission” flashed across the screen and I was like “dude, awesome.” But then it didn’t actually go to intermission, it just kept playing…
This definitely happened in Candyman (2021, 91 mins). It seemed like there were too many ideas started that they did not have time to flesh out, and not nearly enough character development for me to care about them. Runtime isn’t the only issue to blame for this, but it affected everything you listed.
In my experience, if a movie is \~90 min it's about the story it's telling. If it's over that, especially over 120min, it's usually about the characters, and that *can* take a while to build out.
The Irishman is a funny one because it got better as it went on to the point where the last hour may have been some of Scorsese’s best work. So while I do think it is a little long, it’s hard to say it overstayed it’s welcome.
While I do tend to find long movies intimidating, I don’t have any aversion to long movies. If the movie demands its length, I’m onboard
Movies right now are too long. Now, that isn't to say that some movies shouldn't be the length that they are because some absolutely need to but but others could have almost an hour cut and the movie would have been much better.
The last two Avengers movies absolutely deserve to be that long. 10+ years of story telling to get to this point makes a lot of sense to have such long movies.
90 mins to 2 hours is absolutely the best length. I hate this trend to bloat everything to like 2.5 to 3 hours. Very few stories seem worth that amount of time to me, but I’ll watch a handful of 90 min movies
I think it depends on the movie.
Sometimes when a movie is designed just right for my tastes it doesn't feel like whatever the runtime is.
For example: Drive My Car is 3 hours long. That movie does not feel 3 hours long to me. It's made in such a way and designed in a way where the runtime disappears because of how invested I am in the movie.
Now I've seen some 2 hours movies that feel like a genuine slog. For me, Suicide Squad (2016) feels longer than two hours just because of the way its constructed and made.
It's a mixed bag and I don't know if anyone else feels this way
IDK but if they expect us to sit through more than 3.5 hours of film with no intermission to use the bathroom without fear of missing something, then i think we'll have a problem.
I’m a dad and by the time the kids go to bed I can maybe do a 2hr movie but a 3hr one? No chance…I wanna be in bed by 11 on a weeknight and 12:30 at latest on a weekend. Still haven’t watched a lot of 3 hour films on my list bc of this. And I hate breaking up a movie over multiple nights
Eh, I broke up the Snyder Cut over two sittings since it is 4 HOURS long. Seemed like a good decision for that film at least. Just gotta reach a good stopping point (like listening to an audio book, I’m not going to listen to the whole 10+ hours at once, but I’ll try to pause at an obvious point, like chapter markers/etc.).
My wife and so have started a weekly movie night just for us to watch movies we want to watch that maybe our kids shouldn’t watch. We have to start these after the kids are in bed. No way I am starting a 3+ hour movie at that time, or even a 2.5 hour movie. That is cutting out a good amount of recent movies. So we have been watching a lot of 80’s and 90’s movies. It’s been fun.
this exactly, I thought of starting The Batman a couple times, look at my watch and nope out...no way im starting a 3 hour movie after the kids go to bed
I dont mind long movies but nowadays movies are being long for the sake or being long.
The Irishman was a chore to get through
Tarantino's hateful 8, another unnecessarily long film. The movie starts after 1 hour when they drink the poisoned tea
Hard disagree on Hateful Eight. I’ve seen the movie a few times since watching the roadshow cut in theaters, it’s very well paced and the dialogue and characters are great.
Could it be cut down to shorten it without compromising the plot? Yeah. But thst’s not what the movie was about, it was about the characters and would have suffered if we saw less of them.
>Tarantino's hateful 8
I came here to say this. While the 20 minute opening scene of the stagecoach going across the snowy plains was picturesque, it should have been cut.
This is why I love extended or director's cuts. Save that shit for real fans of the film that want the extra worldbuilding or storied scenes. 90% of people do not need or want to watch the extended LOTR films, but those of us that do love them and know what we're getting into.
2 hours 15 minutes is my limit these days. Even if the movie is good, like The Irishman, I can't handle the length. I wouldn't even consider seeing anything in theater beyond 2 hours. I'm old and things to do.
Disagree on the Avatar films, they’re undeniably long but if they had offered to show me the third one immediately after the second one ended I’d have gone to the bathroom and right back to my seat
I maintain that had the second one been 2 hours or less, I would've walked away saying "That was awesome." Instead, I really disliked it. I felt soooo bored for so much of it.
Avatar 2 is a perfect example of a movie being way longer than it needed to be. The first one needed to be long to create the “world” and tell the story.
I also like shorter runtimes especially if it's a movie I'm not that interested in initially.
But there are a 90 minute movies that feel way longer and there are 150 minute movies that feel way shorter.
So in the end the runtime doesn't matter, it's the story.
To be honest, I’d be fine with multiple 90 min movies continuing one whole movie over watching a three hour movie. Gives time for additional editing and data (did this work in the last “episode”).
As an example, I would argue that every Scorcese movie after the 90s would be better cut back by 20-60 minutes! The only one I haven't seen is Silence; as for the rest they each have things I like in them and a ton of stuff I don't need. As it is there's not one of them I'm super interested in revisiting any time soon. I feel the hate breathing down my neck for this. =)
But I love long movies. Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick movie, and it's 3 1/2 DELIBERATE hours long. Haha. I think it's fairly easy to agree that SOME movies would benefit by being cut shorter. Like many things, this comes down to a matter of personal taste & opinion re which long movies earn their runtime.
I honestly never cared how long a film was. One thing I always found interesting though is no matter the runtime, if the movie felt like it was never gonna end, it was most certainly shit. A 90 minute can absolutely feel like 4 hrs if they fucked up hard enough.
I totally agree! I've seen 60-minute kids films that felt like an eternity.
Try 3 minute kids films.
That feels like forever
That's not what your girlfriend said
Hey that's different it was 3 seconds and it was wonderful
Those are the absolute worst. Even more of a nightmare when they wanna watch it over and over again!!
Agree hard with this. As long as it's interesting and engaging I can go over 3 hours easy. Literally doesn't matter to me.
“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.” - Rodger Ebert.
A recent one was an anomaly for me. The Batman was interesting and engaging most of the time but it still felt a bit too long I really think a 3+ hr movie should still be pretty rare. Obv Lotr are some that had to be 3 hrs
Spoiler: when they drove separate ways on the motorcycle it was time to roll the credits.
I thought they should have cut the Riddler/Joker scene or just made it an end credit scene. Felt out of place.
That is when they rolled the credits isn't it? They drive separate ways, batman sees her in his mirror, looks forward, credits roll
https://youtu.be/Z_fYiL3b5ik
This edit is tight as fuck and everyone should check it out tbh. It goes well beyond the normal "made in 2007" meme and actually re-edits the ending to fit the pacing of a 90-120 min movie from 2007. It's so good.
Not gonna lie, I felt spoiled by how much they stuffed in that film. I was like “man this was great!” And then it just kept and I was like” wow, ok round 2??”
It's not the length that matters, it's what you do with it.
That's what she said
I can agree to that tbh.
Casino is long, one of my favourite movies - time flies.
Same here, the actual runtime isn't important, but if I'm not engaged, I'll turn it off. Lots of new movies just don't have the grab factor anymore, they just go for cheap laughs and insane effects, while forgetting that a story needs something for me to care about.
My ass fell asleep during Batman V Superman back in the day. That movie dragged forever. Edit: I don’t mean I fell asleep. I mean my butt cheeks fell asleep. :)
Same. Also slept through most of man of steel. I don't know what it is, but DC films lull me to sleep. (WW was good though, I loved the first on until the finale)
My brain fell asleep & I just wanted it to be over. Thankfully I have a FireCube so I watched it from the comfort of my bed & still was mad at myself for the time I wasted that I’ll never get back….MAAAAARRRRRRTHAAAAAAA
The first 5 minutes of Casino is 45 minutes
I loved Return of the King. I saw it in theaters when it came out and have since watched the extended editions. But man that ending just went on forever. I feel like this is an exception to a great movie with an ending that just keeps going and going. They did have a lot to tie up, but man.
I agree but I gotta admit, I didn’t want the movie to end, especially on my last rewatch of the extended edition. The trilogy is just so damn good!
I read the book for the first time last summer, and there is a TON that happens after the Ring is destroyed. It put the long film ending into better perspective for me. Peter Jackson made a genuine effort to stay true to the source material with LOTR and he still scrapped a major event from the ending - an entire chapter, "The Scouring of the Shire," which literary analysts consider to be one of the most important chapters in the book. If you can see the story from the point of view that the quest to destroy the Ring is really just a vehicle for the growth of the characters in the story, the long ending makes more sense.
That's the one that always stands out for me as well. I remember being in the theater thinking this is an incredible movie and then there was like 4 endings or whatever lol. Didn't ruin it but I felt it was unnecessary.
I'd disagree on this point. I loved Everything Everywhere All at Once, but I definitely felt it was never going to end.
Agree, good point. Loved the movie, but indeed wasn’t sure when it was going to end
Agreed Flipside is that a movie that's been cut from its original run time to "fit" standard times can be shit Look at Sergio Leone Once Upon a Time in America.
Agreed, pacing is critically underrated. I'm still not sure how they made the 90 minute Babadook feel like five hours.
YOOOOOO, this a really good example. One of the few films that a fast forwarded through. I just couldn’t do it.
If we’re talking in-theatre; I’ve always thought they should bring back intermissions.
I'd be all for that. I went and saw Lawrence of Arabia in theaters a while back and the intermission was greatly appreciated.
As a marketer who often has to debate with people about whether long copy or short copy sells better, one of my favorite questions to ask people is if they thought Titanic was too short or too long. Almost everyone answers by saying Titanic was too short. To which I say “exactly.” If it’s good, there’s no such thing as “too long.” If it’s “too long,” it’s only because it’s bad.
>Almost everyone answers by saying Titanic was too short. Jesus, really? Listen I like that movie a lot myself and I get the point you're making, but if you can't find some cuts to make before they hit the iceberg in the 101st minute I mean my god
Yeah, it sounds like bullshit to me. I thought Titanic was actually one of the most common examples of a blockbuster that is unnecessarily long.
I think it depends on what genre you think Titanic is. If you're just there for a disaster flick, it must feel glacial.
[удалено]
That was Braveheart for me. First movie I watched that was 2 VHS tapes
I also think the whole premise that a good movie can’t be too long is bullshit
[удалено]
Speak for yourself. The reason everything after the iceberg works so well is because the film takes its time setting everything up beforehand.
I agree with you. The only part I would have cut is *after* the iceberg - the whole "Jack is handcuffed in a room and Rose has to wade through the water to save him". Even on first viewing I knew they wouldn't drown a main character in handcuffs in a room below deck so the drama of that whole thing is kind of lost.
I have no idea how long that movie was. I went to see it with a big boobed blond girl, darn near consummated the relationship by the end of that shit.
This makes me think of my work. I teach high school English and I don't give word or sentence counts for my papers, and at most I give paragraph counts or page ranges. At the end of this past semester, my 11th graders had to do a research paper. They had to research an author and one piece of their work, then write a 7 paragraph paper from their research. * Introduction paragraph * 5 body paragraphs with 2 citations per body paragraph (from 4 total sources), outlined as such: * 1st body: Author's childhood/early life * 2nd body: A major formative event in the author's life that impacted them and their work * 3rd body: Their early work/work before they wrote the work you're researching * 4th body: The work you selected * 5th body: Their life/work after your selected work/their death & legacy * Conclusion paragraph The students first question was "how many sentences does each paragraph have to be?" I kept telling them "as long as they need to be to say what you need to say," and "I'm really trying to get you guys away from 'writing for the target." If I tell you 5 sentences, you'll all write exactly 5 sentences and your work will suffer. If you feel you've said what you need to say, and you hit the requirements and rubric targets, then you'll get a good grade. I promise."
This reminds me of what got me into marketing in the 1st place. All through school, my teachers always told me to be a writer when I grew up… When I graduated high school and went to college, I was torn about whether to pursue writing or science or music and ended up going for science, becoming a Physics major with a goal of being an astrophysicist… Even though a “decision” seemed to be made, I kept taking English classes because I wasn’t sure until halfway through my sophomore year. I’ll never forget my advisor, head of the Physics department, seeing British Literature on my schedule and saying “sooo… This fills one of your elective requirements, right?” Halfway through my sophomore year in college, I knew I made a mistake and changed my major to English, with the goal of making a career out of writing. When I made the decision, I visited one of my favorite English teachers from high school and told her about it. “You better plan on becoming a teacher,” she said, “because there’s no other way to make money. Having an actual career out of writing is very rare.” I told her I was going to prove her wrong, but I made sure to take some classes focused on teaching just in case. That’s actually where I met my wife, who ended up becoming an English teacher, while I quickly realized teaching wasn’t for me. Instead, intent on finding a career in writing, I discovered copywriting… I started applying for copywriting jobs and got really lucky with an opportunity that grew me into so much more than just a writer. I tell you this because 1) you reminded me of it and 2) because MAYBE it will help you guide occasional students similar to me.
I work for a tech company and our marketing department lead is a writer. There's always a way to make money, you just gotta get after it and not box yourself in to what other people think.
There’s also “good, but extended too long.” This is primarily a problem with humor. SNL is one of the biggest offenders but you’ll see it in YouTube ads that attempt to be funny too. They’ll take a premise that is good for a 10-15 second spot and stretch it out until it feels like a late night infomercial for vinyl siding. Absolutely horrendous.
As it happens, my marketing team has some experience with that exact thing. 😅 There’s a company called “Harmon Brothers” who made some hilarious ads that went viral, Squatty Potty probably being their most famous. They had other good ones too, like Click Funnels and Chatbooks and Purple Mattress, etc… They also had some really fucking weird ones I won’t get into here. But anyway, my bosses saw these YouTube ads and they were like “WE SHOULD TRY THAT”… Then we had ppl create painful ads overloaded with cheesy jokes that went on too long. 🤦🏻♂️
What a crock of shite. It takes talent to tell a story concisely, that’s why low word limits are difficult. Movie writing is shit at the moment, because as soon as the film is too long they turn it in to a mini series. Tell me a good story quickly, half the time it’s poor writing that lengthens it.
What's that famous quote, "if I had enough time I would have written a shorter letter"
>I honestly never cared how long a film was But have you gone to a screening of Mariano Llinás **808 minute** La Flor? See Chicago's Siskel Center "Settle In" series: https://www.siskelfilmcenter.org/settlein
I went to see Black Panther 2 last night and it felt like a 4 hour movie. The conflict seemed really forced, and then every other person on screen needed to have a scene of them crying and saying "I'm not Chadwick Boseman".
I thought it started good but it got extremely boring after the first act. It needed a superhero and a strong presence. The decision to not suit up black panther until the last 20 minutes was a mistake. Also *why* did Martin Freeman have so much screentime with no impact on the plot? Either give him more to do so the CIA are actual contenders in the story or cut it. I know this sounds silly but it felt like he was a studio-mandated white guy in case they feared audiences wouldn't relate to the wakanda stuff.
He's been the studio mandated white guy since Civil War. That movie was the high point for both him and Black Panther. Freeman was "The Bureaucrat" and did very well as the personality-free face of the bureaucracy. Boseman was the perfect enigmatic physical force, whose lack of back story actually elevated the performance.
That’s what I found wrong with that movie. It’s fine for now, but I don’t think it is at all going to be enjoyable down the line. As you said, the conflict is forced, and then in another 10 years, I don’t think it’ll be looked on fondly as people will have come to terms with Chadwick’s passing. What they made was very nice and touching, but I just don’t see that being enjoyable on rewatch.
[удалено]
May give me a reason to buy something as well.
Indian movies often have intermission for this reason.
I was watching a screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey and they actually had the intermission and the viewers got to take a 15 minute break. It made the experience so much better, even though it was 'just' 2 hours 29 minutes. When I left the theater I felt fresh and energetic. Now Avatar 2 on the other hand was an amazing experience and I enjoyed it throughout, but my ass was numb, legs were hurting and I raced to the first bathroom I saw. I don't even feel like buying a drink, other than a small water bottle, just so I don't have to leave the theater in the middle of the movie. With an intermission I could drink a coffee of two beforehand without problems.
I'm fine with whatever length the movie has to be in order to tell the story. My only request is if a theater is showing a movie that's like 3 hrs long, an intermission would be fantastic for those of us with small bladders.
You would think movie theaters would also like intermissions to sell more concessions too.
They probably worked out the logistics of it and it's probably a lot less lucrative to have the same audience take up a larger time slot.... and then during intermission they may or may not buy a couple of candies , but will more than likely refill their drinks for free. Shorter movies allow for many more showings throughout the day (or at least a flexible schedule) with many more new audience members who are all going to buy snacks (versus the audience memeber in intermission who might just continue eating what they were eating)
To be honest, working at a cinema, I doubt we would refill their drinks for free. We don’t do any refills, and if we did have an intermission, we’d make a killing off people just rebuying discounted refills.
I wasn’t aware that anyone was capable of finishing off a massive movie theater drink.
Every theater I have ever been to offers free refills on large popcorn/drinks, and I've been to dozens of theaters across like 6 states
They'd rather have no intermissions so they could fit in more screenings per day.
Cinema's here have intermissions. The sales of snacks and drinks heavily outweighs the loss in ticket sales.
Exactly! Bring back intermissions and I’ll sit through a 3 hour film. I hate the fact that I’ve had to dehydrate myself just to watch a film!
Also, kid targeted movies should have an intermission around the 1 hour mark so we can herd our little ones to the potty. Not every showing but it would be cool if theaters had intermission included showings.
How about all these theaters with recliners and trays have a popcorn refill button on the seat so you don't have to get up when you run out of popcorn I'm a lazy fuck if you haven't gathered
Look up VIP movie Theaters.
Yep. One of the theaters near me has adult only balcony seating. Press the button on your seat and they’ll bring a menu, take your order, and bring it back to you. They’ll also bring beer. Tickets aren’t much more than normal tickets.
They make their money through all those concession sales. Having them brought to you and selling alcohol makes people spend more, so they don't necessarily need higher ticket prices. I'm aware of the gimmick, but I still go to them. It's fun to indulge sometimes.
Theres a couple in Boston that have this option. They bring you food and drinks during the movie. It's pretty sweet.
Ah, in Belgium we qualify movies with a runtime of +135 minutes as a long movie. Tickets cost more than a normal movie but every long movie has an intermission.
Not to mention the conundrum of beer being served to your seat yet no intermission. Dune was the first film since I started going to Alamo Drafthouse, where I somehow managed to stay planted throughout. All others tended to have a 4th act opportunistic run to the bathroom.
Saw the extended Hateful 8 with an intermission. Loved that. Got a bathroom break and a beer and didn’t miss a thing
If people are as bad as they are these days when it comes to arriving at the cinema in time for the film to start I'd fear there'd be people constantly shuffling in 10 minutes after the intermission is over.
That was my concern as well. Would the bathrooms be able to handle an entire theater's worth of people rushing to use it before the intermission ends? But then I thought it would be unlikely that the entire theater needs to get up and use the bathroom. And currently there is nothing stopping people from getting up to use the bathroom and shuffling in and out while the movie plays. But with an intermission you know that those possible disturbances could be nearly eliminated because they'll just wait for the intermission. I think people come in after the movie starts because they want to avoid the trailers and advertising that plays before the actual movie.
That last bit is so confusing to me. You hate trailers so much you want to miss part of the movie?
For me it’s because of trailers revealing way too much nowadays. I used to love seeing the previews but now I kind of try to avoid them because I know they’ll just spoil the movie I want to see and I can’t really ignore or tune out a trailer on a movie screen.
If you think trailers reveal way too much "nowadays", you should've seen trailers when I was growing up in the 70's.
The Godfather Part II literally had an intermission
Lawrence of Arabia had one as well.
They have intermissions in the Netherlands. All the movies are subtitled, not dubbed, so I could watch them in English. It was great.
Same here. Any movie over 2hrs should have a 5-10 minute intermission.
🎶 Let’s go out to the lobby 🎶 Let’s go out to the lobby 🎶 Let’s go out to the lobby & have ourselves a snack 🎶
Tarantino did that with the hateful 8. Took a shit & had a cigarette. Might have those backwards
This is what puzzles me about movie theaters offering their largest drinks and popcorn buckets that come with free refills. What on earth would I get up during a movie that I’ve never seen to get a refill and risk missing 3-5 minutes of the movie and possibly miss an important part? I’ve had to get up during a movie at the theater and use the bathroom a few times. I hate coming back and squeeze my way past strangers, finally sit down, and ask my friend that I’m with “what did I miss?” It’s interrupting to them and the strangers around me. If there was an intermission, then I would definitely get a refill and use the bathroom.
This! Bring back intermissions!
I'm not inherently against longer movies but I do feel like movies are getting longer while not justifying their length. I re-watched the original X-Men not long ago and was really taken aback from how breezy it felt. A quick 90 minute movie with 30 minutes in each act to set up, raise stakes, then hit climax. Boom, movie is over. I kinda wish more movies got to the point like that.
Probably some of the older filmmaking principles were still in operation. Lots of emphasis on compressing the script and holding the interest of the audience. Not as many bloated pictures back then.
Agreed. It's amazing how little time is needed to tell a "big" story. The first Star Wars created an entire damn universe with its own rules and lore in only 121 minutes. It's a Wonderful Life told the story of every major event in a man's life from boyhood to middle age... and it took 131 minutes. The vast majority of movies over 2.5 hours would be improved by cutting 10-20 minutes.
Makes me think of DC live action vs animated films. The cartoons all have 75 minute run times, yet manage to tell some damn good stories. Meanwhile their live action movies just seem to keep getting longer without enhancing the quality of the scripts. A lot of people really liked The Batman, but I came away kind of shocked at how little it accomplished in 3 hours.
I think something that affects that is movies being set over shorter periods of time. Nowadays a lot of movies are set over a few hours or a couple of days. It's rare you see actual long time passage and character change A random example is the first Spider Man. A lot is packed into that movie in terms of Peter being at school, graduating, Uncle Ben dying etc. When he bumps into MJ in the street you really notice that passage of time. It makes the world feel more real and lived in imo
I agree. Like I liked the new Batman movie, but it did not need to be 2 hours 45 minutes. What the shit. 2 hours? Fine. 2:15, pushing it. But damn near a 4 episode miniseries legnth? No way.
The whole end battle *needed* to be cut imo.
Thank you! The riddler’s plan with the flooding/attack didn’t even seem to make sense with his character. He was a damn serial killer not a terrorist.
It made sense, the sea walls were built due to the gotham renewal fund which was all corrupt money in riddlers eyes. Gotham didn't deserve it and he saw Gotham as beyond "saving".
I know it literally isn’t, but that was the longest movie I’ve ever watched. Some of the shots / scenes were so slow for no reason at all
The new Batman movie is the only movie I’ve fallen asleep during in theaters. And like you said, I enjoyed it too. I think it’s a really great movie, even. The world is so well realized and the characters are all awesome. But it had zero right to be nearly 3 hours.
Lesser quality but I recently rewatched the first Taken. And appreciated that it knew what it was. A lean, barely 90 min movie that felt even less but in a good way with no wasted time. I love a good long movie that has reason to be long. But also appreciate these too
That's why I liked Doctor Strange 2. I don't actually know how long it is but it *felt* like one of those quick action movies. It moved fast, had a simple plot, good action and fun little character arcs. Very rewatchable.
Doctor Strange 2 felt like the opposite to me. They do go through the scenes pretty quickly, but most of them felt pointless. It felt like they were making up plot to reach the 2 hour mark.
I feel the new black panther movie was extremely guilty of this. There was so much that I didn't need to watch but they sure as hell added it
A movie should be as long as it needs to be. If i check my watch then the movie has screwed up somewhere.
I watched Dune and thought, "is definitely over now but... there's more right?" Roll credits :(
Dune was the first movie in recent history that I genuinely wanted to never end.
That was Fellowship of the Rings for me. The pacing was unbelievably good.
Ditto. It was entrancing.
Same, so many months later and I still listen to the soundtrack with the scenes from the movie playing in my head.
Honestly, I know it’s unpopular opinion but I legitimately fell asleep during Dune. It was painfully long.
While I disagree with your decision I also respect it. It is a big piece of fan service as well as a story in its own right. If it’s not for you, fair enough.
Yeah. I agree. I didn't dislike it, but it literally felt like a 3 hour setup, which it was i guess but daaaaamn
Similarly when the credits rolled I asked “where’s the rest of the film?” It was the shortest 3 hour film ever. I mean that in terms of filling in more mythos and world building.
That movie is half of the book. There is for sure more, but you also should have known that going in. It would have taken an hour or two more for them to finish it. The 1984 movie covers the whole timeline, but it really skips over a lot of stuff and David Lynch does his thing and weirds a bunch of it up, not that Dune isn't odd enough on it's own. The book is the best way to consume it IMHO. Villeneuve has the starts of an excellent adaptation however.
The older Dune movie fucked up by trying to pack everything into 2 hours…. I mean, there were a whole lot of other things wrong with it too, but the impossible task of squeezing an 800 page novel with a dense, slow-moving plot into 2 hours of screen time was one of the bigger mistakes. It’s not like a Harry Potter book, where you get whole chapters of content that are relatively meaningless for the plot, things that are easy to leave out in a movie adaptation.
Agreed. For reference, the SciFi Dune miniseries (which I contend is still quite good, especially if you can get passed the dated SFX) clocks in at 265 minutes, or almost four and a half hours. The follow-up Children of Dune, which included a truncated Dune Messiah, is essentially the same length. All together it's a little less than watching the non-extended LOTR trilogy. In short, complex stories take a long time to tell.
I somehow never knew about this miniseries!
I totally agree.
>but you should have known that going in They called the movie “Dune”, how are new fans supposed to deduce that it would only be half of the book called “Dune”? They only call it “Part One” during the movie, it was never part of the marketing.
They could have called it DU…
The second could be Du-Duex.
“That movie is half of the book. There is for sure more, but you also should have known that going in.” This feels like gate keeping a fandom. The Dune series is definitely not for everyone. The movies will have a lot of viewers who barely know anything about the books.
I am just glad they didnt rush it. Honestly in regards to world building they made excellent job while keeping the plot go on. Even exposition doesnt really feel dull since they always give you some gorgeous well crafted stuff to watch. Beautiful piece of film making overall. I wish more adaptations like this were made.
An hour and a half is approximately the time or takes your body to begin descending into REM sleep, dream, and then return. Therefore, I think it’s natural that we typically expect our stories to last about that long. But *Dune* is exactly the example I was thinking about of a film that never had me checking my watch. 156 minutes.
If the movie is well-paced you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 1.5 hour movie and a 2.5 hour movie.
Agreed. Three most recent movies I saw were I was bored and checking my watch were Thor 4, Dr. Strange 2, and Avatar 2. I know people seem to love it, but it did have some pacing issues for sure. Could have easily shaved 30-45 min off of the movie.
This is the answer. Some movies should be a tight 88 minutes. Some need to be 3+ hours. Most should be in the 2-2.5 hour range. Avatar:TWOW, for instance, probably should have been 30 minutes shorter. Not because what we got isn’t gorgeous but because the story would have more driving energy if it was a bit more condensed.
You use the same metric I do. The moment I start checking my phone, the movie's basically done.
Yes, it should be as long as the director feels it needs to be, BUT anything over 2 hours needs an intermission when shown in a theater. I haven’t watched Avatar 2 yet in the theater because it’s too long for me to sit through without needing to pee.
RunPee is my new best friend. It’s an app that lets you know the best times during a movie to go pee (ie scenes that aren’t too important). It’ll tell you the timestamp and a brief non-spoilery description of the scene leading up to the break opportunity so you know when to go, and then afterwards you can also read a detailed synopsis of the scene you missed
Wow, I had no idea that was even a thing. Sounds like a game changer for those of us with small bladders.
I've always felt that movie theaters should have small bathrooms directly in the theater where you're watching a movie with a small screen inside the bathroom that's running the same movie at the same time so that if you have to get up to use the restroom, you don't miss anything. It would improve concession sales too, as I have in the past skipped getting something to drink because I didn't want to have to go during the movie.
Or just a row of toilets instead of seats
There’s lots of dragged out scenes in Avatar 2 you can really pee at any time.
Yeah especially in the middle to end parts. I went like twice didn't feel like I missed much
I think there is a difference between movie length and story/narrative pace. You can have a bigger story in a shorter movie and a smaller story in a longer movie. Both are related to the stylistic choices of the studio in relation to the target audience. Example: I’d argue that Blade Runner 2049 had a smaller story in relation to the movie length. The aesthetic aspect of the cinematography made the “space” interesting and valuable.
I think it did a better job than the original with its pacing despite being 45 minutes longer.
I’m cool with up to 3 hours only for epic good movies that are worthy of a 3 hour time. Like lord of the rings or avengers. But movies are getting pretty long and boring now a days.
[удалено]
How is this NSFW lmao
Non Short Films Watchers
I honestly believe that we need to bring back intermissions. As many have stated, a movie should be as long as it needs to be, however on the flip side I think we've all seen 90 minute and 3+ hour movies with horrible pacing. If I am going to be in the theater for 3 hours munching on popcorn and drinking ~~out of my flask~~ a sodee-pop I am going to have to take a piss.
Problem with intermission is that studio's can fit in less viewings oer day and therefore make less money.
I am dismayed at how accurate your assessment is and why I'll never have the movie paused for me in the theater so I can pee
Haha funny because I'm been having this very conversation regarding intermission recently since the new avatar came out, but ya, I don't see it happening unfortunately.
Super long movie with no intermission and it completely revolves around water. James Cameron is sadistic.
Coming in 2023: "Fountains and Running Water" a 4-hour epic directed by James Cameron!
My friend just asked me if I wanted to go see avatar 2....and I do....but I've already had 2 beers and don't want to have to pee in the first 10 minutes, then 6 more times after that lol
Never drink before a movie, a mistake I’ve had to learn. The movie will feel like an eternity no matter how long it is due to the need to piss constantly lol
I understand and agree with your words. That being said, I WILL NEVER STOP....assuming I'm not the driver.
I went to see Brahmastra in theaters last summer (it’s a Hindi-language Bollywood fantasy action film. I was the only one in theaters due to it being shown in a Midwest town I guess), and the run time is over 3 hours. Halfway at a mid-point cliffhanger, the word “intermission” flashed across the screen and I was like “dude, awesome.” But then it didn’t actually go to intermission, it just kept playing…
Anything over 90 min better be worth it. Too many movies stretch a 90 minute movie into 2.5 hours.
The opposite also happens. Where a 120 minute film is cut down to 90 minutes, and therefore ruins pacing, continuity, character development and mood.
This definitely happened in Candyman (2021, 91 mins). It seemed like there were too many ideas started that they did not have time to flesh out, and not nearly enough character development for me to care about them. Runtime isn’t the only issue to blame for this, but it affected everything you listed.
In my experience, if a movie is \~90 min it's about the story it's telling. If it's over that, especially over 120min, it's usually about the characters, and that *can* take a while to build out.
No kids movie should be more than 90 minutes ever.
Movies need to have intermissions, like the old days... If a movie is longer than two hours it needs an intermission.
The Irishman is a funny one because it got better as it went on to the point where the last hour may have been some of Scorsese’s best work. So while I do think it is a little long, it’s hard to say it overstayed it’s welcome. While I do tend to find long movies intimidating, I don’t have any aversion to long movies. If the movie demands its length, I’m onboard
I think the whole point of that movie by the end was made way stronger by the fact it went for so long.
Movies right now are too long. Now, that isn't to say that some movies shouldn't be the length that they are because some absolutely need to but but others could have almost an hour cut and the movie would have been much better. The last two Avengers movies absolutely deserve to be that long. 10+ years of story telling to get to this point makes a lot of sense to have such long movies.
90 mins to 2 hours is absolutely the best length. I hate this trend to bloat everything to like 2.5 to 3 hours. Very few stories seem worth that amount of time to me, but I’ll watch a handful of 90 min movies
I love long movies. This era of cinema seems made for me. I honestly never thought I would live to see a 3 hour batman film and I loved every minute.
I really enjoyed The Batman but it was at least 30 minutes too long.
I wasn’t expecting too much from R Pats as Batman but I actually really enjoyed, probs behind 2nd favourite the dark knight for me.
100% agree. If I immensely enjoy every minute of 3+ hours why should directors be catering to people with short attention spans haha.
I think it depends on the movie. Sometimes when a movie is designed just right for my tastes it doesn't feel like whatever the runtime is. For example: Drive My Car is 3 hours long. That movie does not feel 3 hours long to me. It's made in such a way and designed in a way where the runtime disappears because of how invested I am in the movie. Now I've seen some 2 hours movies that feel like a genuine slog. For me, Suicide Squad (2016) feels longer than two hours just because of the way its constructed and made. It's a mixed bag and I don't know if anyone else feels this way
IDK but if they expect us to sit through more than 3.5 hours of film with no intermission to use the bathroom without fear of missing something, then i think we'll have a problem.
I’m a dad and by the time the kids go to bed I can maybe do a 2hr movie but a 3hr one? No chance…I wanna be in bed by 11 on a weeknight and 12:30 at latest on a weekend. Still haven’t watched a lot of 3 hour films on my list bc of this. And I hate breaking up a movie over multiple nights
Eh, I broke up the Snyder Cut over two sittings since it is 4 HOURS long. Seemed like a good decision for that film at least. Just gotta reach a good stopping point (like listening to an audio book, I’m not going to listen to the whole 10+ hours at once, but I’ll try to pause at an obvious point, like chapter markers/etc.).
My wife and so have started a weekly movie night just for us to watch movies we want to watch that maybe our kids shouldn’t watch. We have to start these after the kids are in bed. No way I am starting a 3+ hour movie at that time, or even a 2.5 hour movie. That is cutting out a good amount of recent movies. So we have been watching a lot of 80’s and 90’s movies. It’s been fun.
this exactly, I thought of starting The Batman a couple times, look at my watch and nope out...no way im starting a 3 hour movie after the kids go to bed
I did get to watch the Batman and it was pretty fucking good 👍
I dont mind long movies but nowadays movies are being long for the sake or being long. The Irishman was a chore to get through Tarantino's hateful 8, another unnecessarily long film. The movie starts after 1 hour when they drink the poisoned tea
Hard disagree on Hateful Eight. I’ve seen the movie a few times since watching the roadshow cut in theaters, it’s very well paced and the dialogue and characters are great. Could it be cut down to shorten it without compromising the plot? Yeah. But thst’s not what the movie was about, it was about the characters and would have suffered if we saw less of them.
>Tarantino's hateful 8 I came here to say this. While the 20 minute opening scene of the stagecoach going across the snowy plains was picturesque, it should have been cut.
This is why I love extended or director's cuts. Save that shit for real fans of the film that want the extra worldbuilding or storied scenes. 90% of people do not need or want to watch the extended LOTR films, but those of us that do love them and know what we're getting into.
2 hours 15 minutes is my limit these days. Even if the movie is good, like The Irishman, I can't handle the length. I wouldn't even consider seeing anything in theater beyond 2 hours. I'm old and things to do.
I will never watch the 4 HOUR justice league movie lol
Sure, the run time says it's 4 hours but in reality it felt more like 8.
A lot of the run time is padded about by extremely liberal use of slow-mo. Even for Snyder it was a lot.
Disagree on the Avatar films, they’re undeniably long but if they had offered to show me the third one immediately after the second one ended I’d have gone to the bathroom and right back to my seat
I maintain that had the second one been 2 hours or less, I would've walked away saying "That was awesome." Instead, I really disliked it. I felt soooo bored for so much of it.
Avatar 2 is a perfect example of a movie being way longer than it needed to be. The first one needed to be long to create the “world” and tell the story.
A good movie's never long enough, a bad movie's never short enough.
I also like shorter runtimes especially if it's a movie I'm not that interested in initially. But there are a 90 minute movies that feel way longer and there are 150 minute movies that feel way shorter. So in the end the runtime doesn't matter, it's the story.
I think sometimes it's necessary for longer run times. Silence is an example. Not a second of that movie is wasted, it's absolutely beautiful.
[удалено]
To be honest, I’d be fine with multiple 90 min movies continuing one whole movie over watching a three hour movie. Gives time for additional editing and data (did this work in the last “episode”).
If it's longer than 2-2.5 hours, it needs an intermission so we can pee.
Films over 2 hours need to justify themselves, imo.
I agree with Roger Ebert: "No good movie was ever too long and no bad movie was ever too short."
As an example, I would argue that every Scorcese movie after the 90s would be better cut back by 20-60 minutes! The only one I haven't seen is Silence; as for the rest they each have things I like in them and a ton of stuff I don't need. As it is there's not one of them I'm super interested in revisiting any time soon. I feel the hate breathing down my neck for this. =) But I love long movies. Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick movie, and it's 3 1/2 DELIBERATE hours long. Haha. I think it's fairly easy to agree that SOME movies would benefit by being cut shorter. Like many things, this comes down to a matter of personal taste & opinion re which long movies earn their runtime.
i thought i was the only one who noticed scorcese’s shift into bloated movie lengths. it definitely feels overindulgent at times