Why are movies so long now?

[darkxshade]

If movies are going to be 3 hrs long, they should just split it into 2 parts and make twice the money. :ninja:

 

[BarkingGhostar]

As long as I'm watching it at home I don't care how long it is. If I'm in a theater, anything over 90min starts to feel like it's dragging on.

I've said this since 2004, which was the last time I went outside my home to watch a movie.

Thankful for my home theater.

 

[Jeff7]

I'm more annoyed by 90 minute movies, especially if the DVD is going to be the same price as something that's 2h30m long, or even 3h. If you're going to make something that short, but still price it the same as something that's >30% longer, well, you'd better be packing a lot of quality into it, and it also shouldn't feel rushed.
An MST3K episode offered good entertainment for gods sake, and each one of those was 90 minutes long.
So 90 minute movies just end up feeling like a regular episode of a high-budget TV show, but which they threw a little bit more money at, and got it into a theater, rather than something that feels like it's really worth the price of a movie.

With that said, I don't really go to movie theaters.
- You don't get to choose who else is in the theater with you...unless you buy all of the tickets available for that showing.
- It's insanely loud.
- The seats generally suck.
- No pause/rewind.
- Food options are to either sneak food in, or buy the expensive stuff they've got there.

 

[mmntech]

I've never seen one in the theater.

Drive-in's have them in between the movies though, with dancing hot dogs and everything!

I'm so glad my area has Drive-In's still, it's dirt cheap.

God, I haven't been to the drive in in years. Yet there's one right up the road from my work. Don't know why I don't.

Long movies are okay if they're good, but they really do need intermission at times. They used to have it. As for Peter Jackson, yeah, he really needs to learn how to time compress. LOTR directors cuts are almost 4hrs, each!!

 

[sdifox]

you should sit through Wagner's Ring Cycle if you think 2:30:00 is long.

http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Der-Rin...rds=ring+cycle


btw, The Ring Cycle is 14.5 Hours. I don't know where the 300min on amazon comes from.

 

[tboo]

I dont have a problem with a movie being long as long as its good.

 

[crabbyman]

My problem with movies being long is taking the time to actually sit down and watch it.

Between work, home, and family things I do not have a spare 3 hours to just sit freely and watch a movie.

I borrowed The Hobbit from my dad but I have to plan out when I am going to watch it since it is so long. My plan? Wait until wife is out shopping AND daughter is napping. Even then I will be pushing my time limits with a movie.

 

[purbeast0]

My problem with movies being long is taking the time to actually sit down and watch it.

Between work, home, and family things I do not have a spare 3 hours to just sit freely and watch a movie.

I borrowed The Hobbit from my dad but I have to plan out when I am going to watch it since it is so long. My plan? Wait until wife is out shopping AND daughter is napping. Even then I will be pushing my time limits with a movie.

why not sit down and watch it with the wife one night and make an evening out of it?

 

[JoetheLion]

Thinking the that the movie "is too long" is in fact a realization that you are bored by the movie, the pace or story being not good enough to entertain you. Nothing more.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

euros get intermissions, and the snack bar sells beer. not a bad approach.

good movies put every minute to use.

the overall theme i see from these replies are people have no attention span

 

[SamQuint]

You younger generation with your ADD. Back in my day all movies were at least 2 hours! And we liked it!

</old curmudgen rant>

But seriously if the movie is good it does not matter how long it is. Hell the best movies are the ones where you forget how long you were in the theater.

take a look at this list
http://www.listology.com/list/movies-long-run-times

 

[purbeast0]

You younger generation with your ADD. Back in my day all movies were at least 2 hours! And we liked it!

</old curmudgen rant>

But seriously if the movie is good it does not matter how long it is. Hell the best movies are the ones where you forget how long you were in the theater.

take a look at this list
http://www.listology.com/list/movies-long-run-times

wow i've seen saving private ryan so many times and it's probably my favorite movie of all time, and i had no CLUE it was 170 minutes long. i had to look at imdb because i thought that list was wrong when i first saw that time. if you asked me how long the movie is i would say a little over 2 hours. didn't realize it was 50 minutes over 2 hours long though.

 

[lupi]

90 minute movies suck with very limited comedy themed ones.

 

[purbeast0]

90 minute movies suck with very limited comedy themed ones.

i watched teenage mutant ninja turtles (the original) and commando this past weekend, and i'm going to have to strongly disagree with your comment.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Thinking the that the movie "is too long" is in fact a realization that you are bored by the movie, the pace or story being not good enough to entertain you. Nothing more.

Mostly true. A REALLY good three hour movie would not seem like a chore and generally if a person is looking at their watch after 90 minutes that's a good indication that the filmmaker failed.

But it also can't be denied that modern Americans have a short attention span and are accustomed to being entertained in shorter snippets, like 7 minute segments between commercial breaks. And I have to believe that directors understand that. Which begs the question whether these 3 hour plodding, slowly-paced epics are meant to be entertaining to us or are made as monuments to their own colossal egos? Directors, especially big name directors like Tarantino and Peter Jackson who demand bloated running times on their films remind me a little of jazz musicians, going off on extended improvisational jams because it amuses THEM, not because the audience wants to hear it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is 40, in particular, was really a chore to get through (though it didn't help that it's such a dreadful movie in the first place). I definitely don't think it makes sense to have comedies over 100 minutes in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I was not bothered by the length of Zero Dark Thirty - I was engrossed the entire time. I loved most of Django - my quarrel with that movie was just fundamentally disliking the third act, not with its length. I have not seen Lincoln.

In general, though, I agree that mainstream movies have gotten too long. The Daniel Craig Bond movies are an example of this - I think they're quite good, but Casino Royale and Skyfall were both well over two hours, and I think it hurt both films.

 

[Puppies04]

I have no problem with a long movie if it is that long for a reason. Django unchained felt like it needed editing down a bit more but movies like shawshank redemption justify their time on screen absolutely.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Like some others I think it really depends on how good the movie is. The problem is there are so many shitty movies these days that end up being longer and longer anyway for no reason. That's just annoying. I do think the sweet spot is just under 2 hours, but again, it depends on the movie.

Shawshank Redemption is 2 hours 22 minutes long. I really liked it and it was totally worth it. I didn't feel like it was too long.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3, on the other hand, was 2 hours and 49 minutes long. And it was also a piece of shit. Totally intolerable.

Hell I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, watched all three extended editions one weekend. 3h28m for Fellowship, 3h42m for Towers, and 4h10m for Return. And I was able to enjoy all of them despite those ridiculous runtimes because I enjoyed the books as a child and I enjoyed the movies.

Generally, I prefer action movies and comedies to be on the short side. Dramas can go longer. Or just anything that I really, really enjoy. There's no excuse for a shitty Transformers movie to go on that long (the latest one was 2h37m). Granted I wouldn't have enjoyed Transformers even if it was under 90 minutes, but that really isn't the kind of movie that they need to stretch out so much.

 

[darkewaffle]

I tend to prefer longer movies. I think 90m and under you're just not getting that same sense of 'escape'.

 

[Hugo Drax]

You guys have short attention spans. I remember seeing Schindler's List in the theaters when I was a kid and I was intrigued for the full 3 hours 15 minutes.

You can't go longer than 90 minutes? Really? That's sad.

The extended edition directors, Alan Smithee cut of Dune is like 5 hours 30 minutes.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I tend to prefer longer movies. I think 90m and under you're just not getting that same sense of 'escape'.

If it's a bad movie, all you can think about is escaping.

I prefer TV shows anyway though. A show like Game of Thrones has production values similar to big-budget movies, and you get 10 hours of runtime per season so they can really flesh out characters and storylines, whereas in a movie, you have to cram everything into 2 or 3 hours and then wait a few years in between each installment.

If you like the show, then 10 hours is nothing, especially when it's split into manageable chunks. Had Game of Thrones been a movie, even a really long one, they wouldn't really be able to explore any of the secondary plots, omitting some and mentioning others only in passing.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

Too long? Sounds like you're just watching shitty movies.

A few weeks ago I watched "Das Boot" with my girlfriend. 209 Minutes and I was still disappointed when it was over! Good movies are good no matter what the length.

 

[JackBurton]

I like a GOOD movie. It won't matter if the movie is long or short. If it's a crappy movie, 90 minutes feels like an eternity, while a great movie will make quick work of 3hrs. The problem is, there are VERY FEW great movies. Last great 3hr movie I saw was Braveheart. Time flew by and never felt like the movie dragged on. Pulp Fiction was another movie that when it was over, I was pissed because I didn't want it to end.

The only movies I can say that I've seen lately that we're true great stories were, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Moon, and maybe another one. IP Man was another great movie, but I realize that may not be everyone's cup of tea.

 

[JackBurton]

Too long? Sounds like you're just watching shitty movies.

A few weeks ago I watched "Das Boot" with my girlfriend. 209 Minutes and I was still disappointed when it was over! Good movies are good no matter what the length.

I still have that movie unopened in my library and have been meaning to watch it.

 

[JackBurton]

Like some others I think it really depends on how good the movie is. The problem is there are so many shitty movies these days that end up being longer and longer anyway for no reason. That's just annoying. I do think the sweet spot is just under 2 hours, but again, it depends on the movie.

Shawshank Redemption is 2 hours 22 minutes long. I really liked it and it was totally worth it. I didn't feel like it was too long.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3, on the other hand, was 2 hours and 49 minutes long. And it was also a piece of shit. Totally intolerable.

Hell I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, watched all three extended editions one weekend. 3h28m for Fellowship, 3h42m for Towers, and 4h10m for Return. And I was able to enjoy all of them despite those ridiculous runtimes because I enjoyed the books as a child and I enjoyed the movies.

Generally, I prefer action movies and comedies to be on the short side. Dramas can go longer. Or just anything that I really, really enjoy. There's no excuse for a shitty Transformers movie to go on that long (the latest one was 2h37m). Granted I wouldn't have enjoyed Transformers even if it was under 90 minutes, but that really isn't the kind of movie that they need to stretch out so much.

Shawshank is another example of a great movie.