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

[Aaryn Chan]

But my d*ck is not!

Well, i depends what movie. My Sassy Girl, i didnt want that movie to end. But it ended after 137 minutes. LOTR, I could watch the three chapters back-to-back.

But LXG, i can't stay awake for more than 2 minutes.

It all depends on how the movie grabs you and keep grabbing you.

To the dude who said 'why do you go to movies then', well, how could we know in advance if the movie's interesting or not until we sit in there.

 

[JustinCleveland]

Doesn't help that we get a half-hour of commercials and trailers before movies these days. It's pathetic.

 

[Matt Stone]

To the dude who said 'why do you go to movies then', well, how could we know in advance if the movie's interesting or not until we sit in there.

That was specifically my point when I said, "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."

Sometimes you get lucky and see an amazing film, and sometimes you see a real POS...regardless of running time.

 

[Peter Kim]

...and moving further down the ladder away from average the longer they get.

I experience no compunction when I decide to cut my losses and walk out on what develops into an interminable piece of shit.

Glad I was sitting in an aisle seat during Spidey.

 

[Jim Spencer]

The Hulk was painfully much to long...but then again it was just a painful movie to watch. I'm glad I waited til it was at the cheap theater for $3.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

The HULK woulve been a greater movie has it been shorter.

 

[Tony-B]

I have to agree that movies are getting longer. Especially the summer blockbuster type of movies.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

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

That's if they were doing one film. Comic book films are starting franchises and are probably already planned out as trilogies...so, in that sense, there is no reason ANY comic based film should run over an hour and a half. As fun as some of the storylines can be...are you really going to a comic book film for that? Not me. I want to see these characters come to life and do things only possible with CGI. Too many comic book films want to be a drama...which is also becoming a trend for summer blockbusters. You can't just have a fun, entertaining summer movie anymore, no no no...now it has to have meaning. What a bunch of crass. Most summer films are paper thin as far as plots go anyways. Pushing them to become some type of weighty project only bogs them down and takes the spirit out of them.

Bruce

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Too many comic book films want to be a drama...which is also becoming a trend for summer blockbusters. You can't just have a fun, entertaining summer movie anymore, no no no...now it has to have meaning. What a bunch of crass. Most summer films are paper thin as far as plots go anyways. Pushing them to become some type of weighty project only bogs them down and takes the spirit out of them.

Nonsense - summer action films can be fun without the weight, but adding a bit of drama gives a film extra depth that makes the entire film more satisfying. Look at T1 and T2 - very memorable summer action films, but they have real depth that adds to the movie. Compare that with T3 - good action, but an ultimately hollow and unsatisfying experience - and you can see why the filmmakers are trying to make films that has depth and that will stand up to repeat viewings.

 

[JonZ]

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

Superman was and needed to be 2 and 1/2 hours.

Conan,The Rocketeer,Robocop,Dick Tracy,X2 are perfect in length,but I always felt XMen could of and should have been longer.

"Pushing them to become some type of weighty project only bogs them down and takes the spirit out of them."

I disagree as I feel most comic book material works best when put in the real world.

 

[David Rogers]

Um ... you're begging for 90min movie specials?

I *hate* 90min movies. It's like, why bother? 90min means they'll have plot and no character development; I don't count basic hero motivations as character development since they're almost always used for central plot. 90mins is not enough time to develop characters.

2 hours is barely enought time to develop a few, maybe a few.

I prefer 2-3 hour films; that's a good length.

To be fair, however, my #1 film of all time is a 90min movie. Toy Story is perfect.

 

[Ron-P]

Run time all depends on the movie. I watched DareDevil and Solaris, both were just over 1.5 hours, perfect. Pirates was great at over 2 and could not have been made shorter.


Peace Out~

 

[TommyT]

Sincerely, if the film is a good one the length shouldn't matter. 1st time I saw Malcolm X I was fascinated for 3+ hrs, so much so that I saw it again. Ditto Fellowship/Ring & the restored vers of Das Boot.

What irks me is tripe like Armageddon, one of the worst films of the 90s; 2.5 hrs & amounts to nothing more than a lengthy music video. I swear there isn't a shot in that flick that's more than 5 seconds long! Roger Ebert called it the 1st 150 min trailer & he was right. Not to mention some of the worst writing, acting & direction I've ever seen.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

I am really starting to get tired of how peoples lack of attention span is starting to dictate entertainment.

Just want to chime in and add my voice as someone who definitely does NOT get scared away just because a piece of art gets larger/longer. In my view, the best piece of work turned out by any mainstream media so far this century is probably Band of Brothers, and at 10 hours all I can think is, damn, why couldn't they have added even more detail and given us 15 hours? Same for LOTR, the special edition movies could easily be 15 to 20 hours total to fit in more of the book (maybe a secret 3rd edition will come out after ROTK?? Hint hint to anyone reading).

The original poster may not have thought carefully before naming this thread, but my point here is, don't go sending stupid messages to film studios like, gee I want shorter, easier to digest movies! Our message should be, gee, send us better movies! Period. And, I for one generally say, that means longer because 2 hrs is simply not enough time to develop a worthwhile story. My 4 cents.

 

[Magnus Nord]

I dont see why anyone would want a picture to be around 90 minutes either?!. Movies should be long enough to develope everything.. and the fact that i love sitting 2-3 hours for a movie, it feels so much more.. complete.

 

[Magnus T]

Personally, I think many, many films (especially in the last 10 years) over 2 hours could have benefited from being cut down. In particular Michael Bay films...

 

[Agee Bassett]

Anyone who thinks that 90 minutes is too little time to develop a plot or imbue a film with depth hasn't seen a broad enough spectrum of movies.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Agee is correct.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Man, what was David Lean thinking? :rolleyes

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I don't think that you can get a correct answer for this, because it is up to the individual viewer on what should or should not be in the film.

IMO, I did like JP1 & 2 partially because of their length. Both were over 2 hours, but JP3 was only 93 min., and I think it should have been over 2 hours too. Of course, I have no idea how they would have inserted more material and/or a sub-plot to get it there, but others might feel that JP1 & 2 could have been cut down to 93 minutes too.

Likewise, movies are made with what I feel is too much 'fluff' in them sometimes. In some commentaries, it is explained that they had a longer scene for a certain part of the movie, but cut it out because it just wasn't necessary.

Of course, I can always go back to 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' too. When it came out I just didn't get it. So much had been cut out of it that it wasn't funny, but seeing it 'as it should have been' makes it, to me, a great movie.

Glenn