Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › The 90 minute rule.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 90 minute rule.

post #1 of 31
10/7/08 at 3:02pm
Thread Starter 
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"
Reply
post #2 of 31
10/7/08 at 3:05pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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.
Reply
post #3 of 31
10/7/08 at 3:08pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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.
Reply
post #4 of 31
10/7/08 at 3:25pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric-S
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"
What if you have lousy taste?

M.
Reply
post #5 of 31
10/7/08 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
What if you have lousy taste?

M.

Then I guess it would make me no different than most producers in Hollywood!
Reply
post #6 of 31
10/7/08 at 4:42pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric-S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
What if you have lousy taste?
Then I guess it would make me no different than most producers in Hollywood!
Even if I agreed with that (and I don't), Hollywood isn't the only source of movies.

M.
Reply
post #7 of 31
10/7/08 at 5:01pm
Thread Starter 

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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.
Reply
post #8 of 31
10/7/08 at 5:27pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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?
Reply
post #9 of 31
10/7/08 at 5:40pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRice
Did Transformers need to be 2.5 hours? NO.
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.
Reply
post #10 of 31
10/7/08 at 9:17pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRice
Did Transformers need to be 2.5 hours? NO.

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.
Reply
post #11 of 31
10/7/08 at 9:55pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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?
Reply
post #12 of 31
10/8/08 at 2:58am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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?
Reply
post #13 of 31
10/8/08 at 3:56am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

The Godfather. 'nuff said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
BEN-HUR (1959) is over three hours, and it never drags to me.
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.
Reply
post #14 of 31
10/8/08 at 4:15am
Thread Starter 

Re: The 90 minute rule.

And I'm sure if Bob Evans and Coppolla were to present their case, they would have gotten my seal of approval!
Reply
post #15 of 31
10/8/08 at 5:04am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Well said, David.

I think it was well said first by Roger Ebert.
Reply
post #16 of 31
10/8/08 at 8:06am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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.
Reply
post #17 of 31
10/8/08 at 8:40am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Some are, it's true. But 90 minutes as the cut-off point? 90 minutes?
Reply
post #18 of 31
10/8/08 at 10:19am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Reply
post #19 of 31
10/8/08 at 10:24am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

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!"
Reply
post #20 of 31
10/8/08 at 10:48am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony J Case
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!"

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?
Reply
post #21 of 31
10/8/08 at 10:50am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!"

See, this is where individual tastes come into play. While I agree with you on "King Kong", I actually go the other way on the "Lord of the Rings." It wasn't until the extended cut of the first movie that I came to love it. To me, the extended cut has better pacing, character development, etc. I think the first two films were both helped immensely by the extended editions.
Reply
post #22 of 31
10/8/08 at 11:44am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

Not to speak for Tony, but if the goal is to create the best possible Lord of the Rings film, and not merely to slavishly recreate the books on-screen, then yes, they surely could have been a fair bit shorter than they were.
Reply
post #23 of 31
10/8/08 at 12:08pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


For "film editing", you could substitute "directing", "cinematography" and (especially) "screenwriting". It would cover an enormous number of posts here.

Now add in "disc producing", "telecine operations", "sound mastering" and "compression technology", and you could cover maybe half the posts on the board.

M.
Reply
post #24 of 31
10/8/08 at 12:51pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink
Not to speak for Tony, but if the goal is to create the best possible Lord of the Rings film, and not merely to slavishly recreate the books on-screen, then yes, they surely could have been a fair bit shorter than they were.

Honestly, I don't know what you would cut without losing something in the end. Especially The Fellowship of the Ring. They're pretty much classics now.
Reply
post #25 of 31
10/8/08 at 1:05pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

I LOVE Lord of the Rings, but if you cut out all the long, lingering looks between Sam and Frodo, the entire Trilogy could be told in 90 minutes.
Reply
post #26 of 31
10/8/08 at 1:08pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

I agree with you about Fellowship, easily my favorite of the three, which is actually already under three hours.
Reply
post #27 of 31
10/8/08 at 1:14pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony J Case
...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!"

Umm, you meant New Zealand, right?

Besides the nit-pick I have to disagree as well. King Kong WAS too long. Lord of the Rings? -- I prefer the extended editions (with the exception of the long epilogue).
Reply
post #28 of 31
10/8/08 at 3:17pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

What I wouldn't give to purge the influence of MTV from our culture. Attention spans would double in a year.
Reply
post #29 of 31
10/8/08 at 7:02pm

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

I think all three films could have been done in less than three hours if Jackson took out all the dumb cliffhanger moments involving the main character dying when I'm pretty sure everyone knew he wouldn't die in the first or second movie.
Reply
post #30 of 31
10/9/08 at 12:38am

Re: The 90 minute rule.

Quote:
Do we really need two hour long "gross out" comedies?

I doubt we need even one hour long "gross out" comedy.

Bruce
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › The 90 minute rule.