The 90 minute rule. (1 Viewer)

[Eric-S]

I think all movies should be able to tell their story in 90 minutes. If they want to make it longer, they have to go in front of a commision chaired by me and give a compelling reason.

Otherwise, "snip, snip"

 

[DavidPla]

Then I'm glad you're not in charge of the lengths of movies.

A good movie is never too long.

A bad movie is never too short.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well said, David.

I think it all depends on the movie. It's not just about length itself. Generally speaking, I'm finding these days that I like the approach of many older movies that are around 70 - 90 minutes. But at the same time I have watched draggy movies which ran only 60 minutes, yet seemed to last forever, as well as films that ran 130 minutes which went by like a breeze! It's not so much the actual length of time as what is being done and how the time is utilized. BEN-HUR (1959) is over three hours, and it never drags to me.

 

[Michael Reuben]

What if you have lousy taste?

M.

 

[Eric-S]

Then I guess it would make me no different than most producers in Hollywood!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Even if I agreed with that (and I don't), Hollywood isn't the only source of movies.

M.

 

[Eric-S]

I think people are taking this too seriously. It was just a tounge-in-cheek comment. Of course movies should be long enough to tell their story. I just think some are needlessly long. That's all.

 

[JohnRice]

Well, yeah. Did Transformers need to be 2.5 hours? NO. A lot of movies are too long, but...

One of my favorite quotes, from Roger Ebert, referred to The Man Who Wasn't There, which is admittedly longer than it probably should be. It was something to the effect of "who cares if the Coen Brothers took two hours to accomplish what nobody else could have accomplished at all."

What about all those Shakespeare plays, which generally run 4 hours?

 

[TravisR]

I wish alot of summer movies would trim down. Some work fine at two and a half hours but some are just an hour too long so everyone involved can pretend that they're making an epic and so the audience doesn't feel ripped off for paying $10 to see a 90 minute movie.

 

[nolesrule]

2.5 hours of Megan Fox and transforming robots? What's not to love? If you don't find the story good enough, well, that's what the mute button is for.

 

[DavidJ]

I think there is some merit to this discussion-- not that it'll change anything. There are far more movies that are too long than are too short. Don't get me wrong, I love plenty of movies that are of an "epic length," but they are a bit harder to fit into a busy schedule. If a movie needs the time and uses it well, I have no problem with it being long. The problem is too many movies think they need the time and fail to use it well. Bergman always amazed me with how much he could put into 88 minutes and he was tackling some of the deepest subjects possible. Do we really need two hour long "gross out" comedies?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, of course some are needlessly long. I notice the same thing, and the trend is getting even worse these days. But you can't make one definitive statement that "no movie should be longer than 90 minutes". I realize that it was only a tongue-in-cheek comment, but then what was the point in making it, if not to stimulate discussion and opinions on that statement?

 

[Yee-Ming]

The Godfather. 'nuff said...

One show that surprised me was The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. I first watched it in college, in the middle of the night to boot (started at 2am, ended around 5) and not once did I feel it dragged. The next time I watched it start to finish, a few years ago when the SE DVD came out, I felt exactly the same way. Which is curious because objectively speaking, one can imagine that some parts are rather 'slow-boil' relatively speaking, compared even to say The Godfather, or for that matter the likes of LOTR which have so many plot developments along the way.

 

[Eric-S]

And I'm sure if Bob Evans and Coppolla were to present their case, they would have gotten my seal of approval!

 

[Tom Kirk]

I think it was well said first by Roger Ebert.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

The subject of the thread seems indicative to me of a terrible affliction affecting many people these days-- wherein more and more of them are under the mistaken impression that they've suddenly become artists, developed an instantaneous talent for film editing, and are waiting for the Oscars they've retroactively won to be sent to them in the mail.

 

[Arild]

Some are, it's true. But 90 minutes as the cut-off point? 90 minutes?

 

[DavidJ]

I would venture a guess that it has to do more with shortened attention spans and the fact that we now get out information and communicate in short bursts. It does have an impact.

Still, I understand what you are saying and I would agree that attitudes like that do exist. In the extreme, I too find them troublesome, but some of this comes down to "I know what I like." They may not know the why, that is for the artists who craft the films, but they know how they feel and that should not be summarily dismissed.

 

[Tony J Case]

Yeah, there's a couple of movies that spring to mind - pretty much anything by Peter Jackson, really. Kong would have been a great flick with half an hour trimmed out of the middle section (and some out of the first reel), and there was zero reason that Lord of the Ring needed to be as bloated and fat as they were, aside from "Look, we flew all the way down to Australia - we're going to show off the scenery, DAMNIT!"

 

[DavidPla]

You might be right about King Kong but come on... Lord of the Rings? Have you read the book? You think each book could've been done in LESS than three hours?