Its an average lenth animated movie (If you want short, check out Snow White). I felt it was of adequate length to develop the characters and the plot sucessfully. I always get the feeling that the production values of animated and computer generated films are much higher. Perhaps its because each shot takes so long to compose and render that you really have to be sure you want that shot.
Generating 2048 bits of randomness...
Yeah, usually animated flicks (especially Disney) run in the 80-95 minute range. Shrek is on the longer end of things.
Here are some other animated films. Note the trend with Disney in the 50's and 60's to stay under 80 minutes even.
81 Toy Story 1
96 Bug's Life
84 Chicken Run
94 Titan: A.E.
106 Final Fantasy
92 Monsters, Inc
89 Lion King
84 Beauty and the Beast
83 Snow White
78 Jungle Book
79 101 Dalmations
The difference in production cost between cutting a typical movie at 100 minutes or 2.5 hours is pretty small (relatively) -- Most likely have 3+ hours of usable footage. Even if it's a 'block-buster' Armageddon, their are only certain sequences with expensive FX.
Animation, on the other hand is _all_ expensive FX. A 2.5hr animated film would have to pull in some serious buckets of money. Shrek did that, but I doubt it was expected to make nearly that much.
Still, it was pretty long for an animated film. Not saying I would mind it being longer though!
I actually thought that it could have been tightened up a little towards the end as the pacing seemed to drag starting around the explanation of Fiona's "condition".
Livonia, MI USA