Are average movies getting longer & longer? (1 Viewer)

[Norm]

Its starting to turn me off, making trips to the theater. Does Pirates & Tomb Raider really need to be over two hours long. I would rather rent them because their running times are over 2 hours. I don't mind sitting over two hours for a great flick, but sitting over two hours for a popcorn flick just doesn't motivate me to go the theater, and sit in what may turn out to be snooze material.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Tomb Raider 2 was like 110min. thats under to hours...

 

[Matt Stone]

I'm usually concerned more with seeing the film than sitting for x amount of time to watch it. Regardless...if you feel the running time is too long, and the film "doesn't motivate" you to go to the theater...why do you go anyway?

 

[John Watson]

Yeah, everything is too big. Movies and cds too long. Sofas too fat. People gettin obese on huge burgers. SUVs that look like friggin Armored Personnel Carriers.

 

[Norm]

Family! I don't always want to see everything!

 

[Agee Bassett]

Are average movies getting longer & longer?

Yup.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

It's one of those cyclical things. Somone must have heard you - look at Kill Bill. Instead of one 3 hr movie now you are going to get two 90 minute movies. 'course now you have to make 2 trips to the theater instead of one.

Which scenario do you like better?

 

[JonZ]

Most of my favorite films are considered long movies.

Id rather a film take the time needed to tell the story.

The Kill Bill fiasco is just crazy.

No reason why a 3 hour movie should be split into 2 except for $$$$.

Love that Di$ney company man.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Id rather a film take the time needed to tell the story.

Yes, but that's if there's something to tell.

It's funny that new movies are longer, but the pace is often more hectic than older films. To me, it's not that they're taking longer to tell the story, but that they put more stuff in the story to begin with.

I think we can all agree that there are bad and good movies of any length. But if a film is going to be longer, it should be justified. Lord of the Rings needs to be that long considering the massive work it's adopting. But does a comic book movie need to be over 2 hours?

 

[KyleK]

Lord of the Rings needs to be that long considering the massive work it's adopting. But does a comic book movie need to be over 2 hours?

Kyle

 

[Matt Stone]

But does a comic book movie need to be over 2 hours?

Beauty, or in this case...amount of time needed to tell a story, is in the eye of the beholder.

My point is simply that the running time isn't what makes a film bad or good...the story and method of storytelling is what counts. I agree that it sucks to sit around in the theater for 2+ hours watching a bad film, but that's just the risk you have to take when going to see any film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Remember the good old days when we could zip in and out of the theater when seeing Ben-Hur, 2001, Cleopatra, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Once Upon a Time in the West, Rosemary's Baby, Cool Hand Luke, GBUgly, 7 Samurai, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf...

Billy Wilder films almost all ran at 125 minutes or so, despite being mostly comedies.

Birth of a Nation ran at 3+ hours.


We still get plenty of films running between 90-110 minutes, and films running longer than 120 minutes have always been common. T3 and Charlies Angels 2 are two popcorn flicks that come to mind from this year which run around 105 minutes as an example.

I would bet that if you were to average the running times of the top 50 BO films from each year you would see very little in the way of running time trends.

 

[Norm]

I agree Comic Book movies could be 4 hours, considering 40 years of material.

Running Time is a factor when I go now, depending what type of movie I consider seeing.

Tomb Raider was listed at my theater as 2 hours 10 mins.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Well its only like 110min...

 

[Krystian C]

The way I look at it is, you are getting a better return on you cash.

I refuse to go to movies that are 90min or less, it just is not worth it. Would you rather spend $8 to get 90mins of entertainment, or 120min+ ???? What is the better deal? If the film is good who cares if it is 3hrs. LOTR - Two Towers felt like it was over in 90mins, the 3 hrs flew by. And most movies do if you are enjoying the content. If you aren't, then why is your ass in the theater? I am really starting to get tired of how peoples lack of attention span is starting to dictate entertainment. I am seeing this alot more in the Video game industry right now. Games that take 7 - 8 hrs to finish. And the game companies say that people are crying out for short games so they feel like they are accomplishing something, and are having a hard time keeping interest for longer than that. Well too damn bad. We have become a I want it now, in as little time as possible world. It is the same people that think movies are too long, that are pissed when they have to wait 2 minutes to get to the bank teller, or wait 30 SECONDS! to heat up there burrito in the microwave. Anyway I digress.

My point is, if the movies are getting longer, great, we are the ones winning in the deal. If you don't like it, don't go, or suck it up and deal.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It's not a matter of how long, but what you do with what you got.

 

[david stark]

For me it's all a matter of quality. I saw tomb raider (rented it on dvd) and it was absolute *****. I've seen the trailers for tomb raider 2 and I don't care if it is 5 minutes 110 minutes or 500 minutes, I'm not going to see it becasue it looks like ***** as well and a waste of time.

I can see why studio exec's like short films, if it's a poor 90 film it will get better reviews than a poor film thats 120 min. If it's poor and ends after 90 you may like it, but if it drags on for another 30 minutes you will hate it. I thought that joan of arc in particlar dragged far too much. They could have cut almost an hour of that film with no loss to the story and it would have made the film so much better.

 

[Bill J]

Tomb Raider was listed at my theater as 2 hours 10 mins.

They're wrong. Maybe they included the previews or something. I thought Tomb Raider had the perfect length, but Pirates could have been much shorter.

 

[Norm]

Well I saw TR, and was hoping for the best, but it was just an average popcorn flick.

Family dragged me there.

 

[DaveGTP]

Ironically, I generally look at the running time. If there is a movie that I am guessing is very formulaic, I check out the running time. Anything hovering at around 90-100 minutes strengthens my suspicion that it is a typical formulaic movie.