Dr. DVD

It seems that whenever a noted director makes a movie nowadays (Fincher, Nolan, Jackson), they don't really know how to tell it in under two hours, or even two an a half hours (though I think Gone Girl may have clocked in under that mark without credits). I know there is a need for artistic integrity and all , but I think there should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't think each Hobbit movie needed to have a 2.5+ run time for their theatrical cuts, nor do I think Dark Knight Rises or Interstellar required as much time as they took.

I also notice that whenever Oscar season approaches, movies that we are supposed to see as contenders all run long. I thought Wolf of Wall Street was entertaining, but it really got tedious after the two hour mark. I can't help but feel that studios have a problem telling certain directors to cut their work.

Also , I am not posting a poll because I want open discussion. Also, I know many people would just select the option of "depends on the movie" most of the time, so I won't bother.

RichC2

It's nothing new, if there is story to fill those 3 hours, go for it. I didn't think Interstellar ran too long, though I did think TDKR did.

To note too, long movies and the oscars, last year:

American Hustle: 2hr 18m
Captain Philips: 2hr 14m
Dallas Buyers Club: 2 hr
Gravity: 1hr 30m
Her: 2hr 6m
Nebraska: 1 hour 55 minutes
Philomena: 1 hour 38 minutes
12 Years A Slave: 2hr 14minutes
Wolf of Wall Street: 3 hours

Considering everything, I think roughly 2 hours is fair for a non-genre movie. Movies like Saw or The Hangover fill 90 - 110 minutes as pure entertainment (well, you know what I mean), it's kind of expected that a more elaborate movie would take longer to tell. But I do think the 2hr 30m mark is a nice maximum if there is enough content, The Hobbit movies are absurdly bloated.

GoldenJCJ

One of my "bold statements" I the other thread is that the art of proper editing is dying, if not completely dead. I think if someone reigns these directors in (I'm looking directly at you, Michael Bay) then their films will be the better for it.

Mike86

I don't think there's really a one size fits all answer to this question. Some films that are long work great and I don't want them to end. Others can be a chore to get through.

Solid Snake

this.

Groucho

Not a new problem:

Heaven's Gate: 3 hours 39 minutes
Once Upon a Time in America: 3 hours 49 minutes

DaveyJoe

These directors are able to make longer movies because they have proven themselves. Their films have been successful time after time, so why would a movie studio step in and tell them what to do?

Alan Smithee

"No good movie is ever long enough, and no bad movie is ever short enough."

PhantomStranger

While I liked Wolf of Wall Street, I thought 30-45 minutes could have easily been chopped out of it. Too many Yes-men surround proven directors like Scorsese.

Count Dooku

American Hustle was definitely too long. Two hours was the maximum I wanted to spend with those characters.

Groucho

It's a great Ebert quote, but don't know if it's 100% true. Take something like Gravity which I thought was "just right".

GoldenJCJ

Not to mention that there are plenty of bad movies that could be good if they were shorter.

Dr. DVD

I had actually forgotten that Transformers:AOE was about as long at Interstellar. Same length, way different levels of quality.

Why So Blu?

I concur.

RichC2

He went back on that one time... for Love Actually.

robin2099

I agree there is no one stop answer. Movies like TDK, T2DC, Alien's Directors cut, The Last Samurai, and the original Lord of the Rings trilogy I had no issues with. They were paced well I was involved and the time didn't bother me.

By the same toke, Catching Fire, Divergent, The Hobbit movies, sndthe second Transformers movie, all felt like they went on for ever and I had no desire to finish any of them. It all comes down to pacing and knowing when to end your story.

GoldenJCJ

Sure there's a one stop answer - get proper fucking editing!

Solid Snake

Get the fuck out of here, Dominguez.

kd5

I'd rather see a 2½ hour movie and feel like I got my money's worth than see a 76 minute movie and feel like I got cheated. With longer runtimes, the director has a better chance of fleshing out their characters and giving a better feel for the storyline, makes me feel like the story is more complete. With a short movie, it feels as if the director was in a hurry to get it over with. I guess it really depends on the movie, but I appreciate more than less.

Mr. Salty

It goes back a lot farther than that. "Les Vampires" in 1915 was almost seven hours long.

Also:

Lawrence of Arabia
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Spartacus
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Ben-Hur
Cleopatra
Gone With the Wind
Doctor Zhivago

The list goes on.

The better answer would be to improve your attention span!

GoldenJCJ

Hell, I turn youtube videos off within the first 30 seconds if it hasn't captured my interest!

The Bus

No, no no. Long movies were JUST invented!

Troy Stiffler

And those movies aren't a problem at all!

The most satisfying art and entertainment is when you're indulging alongside the artist. Not everyone will connect. But when you do, you're locked.

And you're not sitting there with just the director. It's the director, the actors, the production designer, the score composer, etc. Any one of those can really pull you in and make you forget about the others.

I think we should all indulge! Timid an unexpressive cinema is a bore.

Hokeyboy

This newfangled 3 hour movie thing that just started recently?



It's a fad...

hanshotfirst1138

This. Roger Ebert's famous quote about "no bad movie is short enough and no good movie is long enough?" That's how I interpret it. I've seen good films which are 3+ hours which fly by. I've seen bad films which are short which never seem to end. There are certainly plenty of directors like Cameron and Jackson who's films are long by virtue of their egos (and I like Jackson), and it's becoming an increasing problem with Hollywood films, but it isn't anything new.